Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30

a.

Logical inference
 Inference
1. The process whereby the mind draws new idea from one
proposition to another is a fitting discretion of the term inference.

 Kinds of inference (immediate and mediate inference)


1. Immediate inference
a. Immediate is synonymous with the word “direct” or
“without any a do”.
b. This type of inference draws a conclusion from one
proposition only without the aid of the second proposition.
c. By virtue of its nature, sometimes immediate inference is
not considered by many logicians to be a form of inference
because of the formulation of its consequent is merely
taken from the same truth expressed by the original
propositions either partially or completely.
d. This kind of inference consists only of two terms: subject
and predicate. The middle term is not part of the structure
of immediate inference.
e. Due to the material make-up of this inference, it offers little
knowledge and cannot elicit an advance type of knowledge.
This is what makes other logicians consider it as a non-
inference in the strict sense.
f. There are two types of immediate inference: the eductive
inference and the oppositional inference. (explained later)
i. Ex. Some intelligent students are enrolled in PUP.
Ergo, some enrolled in PUP are intelligent students.

2. Mediate inference
a. The word “mediate” entails the use of two propositions.
b. This type of inference draws a conclusion from two given
propositions. From these two propositions, a new idea and
truth will emerge.
c. This kind of inference elicits an advanced knowledge.
d. There are two known types of mediate inference: inductive
and deductive.
i. Inductive ex.
Maria is a good student she is from PUP
Lucy is a good student she is from PUP
Jane is a good student she is from PUP
Therefore, there is a possibility that all
students of PUP are good.
ii. Deductive ex.
All birds are winged creatures
Some winged creatures are colorful
Therefore, some colorful (animals) are birds.

 Structure of logical inference


1. To establish new idea there is a need to compare ideas. Inference
necessitates the emergence of propositions in order to elicit an
antecedent and consequent relationship.
2. ANTECEDENT is regarded as the structure of logical inference to
which something is to be taken or inferred from. The term itself
was taken from the Latin word “antecedo” which means
“something that goes before”.
3. CONSEQUENT is regarded as the structure of logical inference
from which something is taken or inferred from the antecedent. the
term originated from the Latin word “ consequor” which means
“something that follows after”.
 Nature of antecedent and consequent relationship
1. In a valid inference, it is essential for the consequent to become
true if the antecedent is true. However there are cases that the
consequent is false because the antecedent is false.
a. All Japanese are Asians
Some Japanese are businessmen
Therefore, some businessmen are Asians
i. Both the antecedents are true, therefore the
consequent is also true. Thus the example is a valid
one.
b. Every cat is quadruped.
Ergo, some quadrupeds are cats.
i. The example is an immediate inference. The
antecedent is true and the consequent is also true.
c. Every dog is biped.
Therefore, some bipeds are dogs.
i. The example is again an immediate inference
however the antecedent is false and its consequent
is also false. Obviously it is an invalid inference.
2. Many logicians will consider example (c) as a case of valid
sequence. A valid sequence happens if the consequent flows with
logical connection from the antecedent regardless whether the
antecedent is true or false. An invalid sequence happens if the
connection mimics simply the material feature of a valid sequence.
3. Whether an inference is a case of valid or invalid sequence, it is
necessary to determine whether the premises are true and that from
them the truthfulness of the conclusion must be attained then only
then the inference is a valid one.
a. All mayors are local officials
No mayors are councilors
Ergo, no councilors are local officials.
i. The consequent does not flow with logical necessity
from the two premises or antecedents. It simply
mimics the form of a valid sequence. The
antecedents are true but the conclusion is not.
Although the material feature of the consequent
flowed from the antecedent, nonetheless its thought-
content is not.
b. Man is a creature.
Ergo, man needs God.
i. This is an example of an invalid sequence. The
consequent is illogically connected to the
antecedent. The antecedent is true but it does not
follow that man would need God immediately. The
material and the thought-content of the antecedent
do not immediately imply the consequent.
 Principles of inference
1. There are three major pairs of principles that are being
acknowledged by logicians. These are:
a. Principle of identity and the principle of contradiction
b. Principle of identifying the third and the principle of
separating the third
c. Principle of dictum de omni and the principle of dictum de
nullo
2. Principles of identity and contradiction
a. Principle of identity
i. It is a principle which claims that if any argument is
true then it is really true. This principle is best
described through the statement “whatever is, is” or
through the statement “everything is what is”.
ii. Normally, the principle of identity is used to
construct affirmative categorical propositions.
1. Every horse is an animal.
Ergo, some animals are horses.
2. Every flower is fragrant.
Rose is a flower.
Therefore, rose is fragrant.
b. Principle of contradiction
i. It is sometimes called the principle of non-
contradiction. This principle states that a thing
cannot be and not be at the same time or in the same
respect.
ii. The principle of contradiction speaks is all about the
opportunity of two premises which are in
contradictory with each other to be true or false at
the same time. In logical inference, if a certain
premise is true then it cannot be false at the same
time or in the same respect.
1. You are a man.
Ergo, you are a woman.
a. “You are a man” if this statement is
true then the conclusion is false.
2. You cannot be at two places at the same
time.
a. A certain person cannot be at two
places at the same time.
3. Principle of identifying the third and separating the third
a. Principle of identifying the third
i. It is a principle whose basic premise is “two things
that are identical with the same third thing are
identical with each other”.
ii. This principle is attesting to the real essence of a
valid inference.
iii. If two concepts are identical with the third, it
follows that there is a valid sequence among the
premises and that the truthfulness of the two
premises determines the truthfulness of the
conclusion.
1. Every plan is a living thing.
Every orchid is a plant.
Ergo, every orchid is a living thing.
2. Every vehicle is a form of transportation.
Every car is a vehicle.
Ergo, every car is a form of transportation.
b. Principle of separating the third
i. It is a principle whose basic premise is “two things
of which the one is identical with the same third
thing and the other is not are not really identical
with one another”.
ii. This principle exhibits a form of denial in one of the
concepts presented. This gives us the impression
that one is not identical with the third concept.
1. Every sophomore is a student.
No student is a teacher.
Ergo, no teacher is a sophomore.
a. The concept “teacher” is not
identical with the concept
“sophomore” because the middle
term student failed to connect the
one to the other. The concept
“teacher” is separated from the
concept “sophomore”. Therefore,
they are not identical with one
another.
2. No rapist is a good man.
Every rapist is a criminal
Ergo, no criminal is a good man.
4. Principle of dictum de omni and the principle of dictum de nullo
a. Principle of dictum de omni (the law of all)
i. It is a principle which is applicable to any
affirmative syllogism. Its basic premise is
formulated as “what is predicated of a logical whole
maybe predicated distributively in each of its
inferior”.
1. Every physician is a medical expert.
Every pediatrician is a physician.
Ergo, every pediatrician is a medical expert.
b. principle of dictum de nullo (the law of none)
i. it is a principle of which the basic premise is “what
is denied of a logical whole may also be denied
distributively of each inferior”
ii. This principle is manifested in a negative syllogism.
1. No genius is dumb.
Every philosopher is a genius.
Ergo, no philosopher is dumb.
b. Logical opposition
 To understand propositions more intensely we should consider their
opposite forms in reference to their quantities and qualities or the
combination of both. This idea is simplified through the use of a square.
 Oppositional square:

A CONTRARY E
(u,+) (u,-)

1.

SUBALTERNATE
SUBALTERNATE

CONTRADICTORY
Y

I SUBCONTRARY O
(p,+) (p,-)

 This is a device which is used to represent propositions using their


individual symbols such as A, E, I, and O in order to show their opposite
relationships with other propositions.
 Logical opposition of propositions
1. It is attained when two propositions of different quantity or quality
or in both quantity and quality are compared.
2. There are four kinds of opposition namely:
a. Contradictory
b. Contrary
c. Sub-contrary
d. Sub-alternate
 Kinds of logical opposition of propositions
1. Contradictory opposition
a. It is a kind of logical opposition which exists between two
propositions which are different in both quantity and
quality.
b. There are two pairs of contradictory and these are (A-O)
and (E-I).
i. (A-O)
1. A proposition is universal and O proposition
is particular.
2. A is affirmative while O is negative
ii. (E-I)
1. E proposition is universal and I proposition
is particular.
2. I is affirmative while E is negative
c. There is only one rule to be followed in contradictory
opposition and that is “two propositions cannot be true or
false at the same time”. If one is true the other must be false
or vice versa.
A and E O and I
true false
false true
i. If A is true then O is false or vice versa.
ii. If E is true then I is false or vice versa.
iii. Examples:
1. (A-O) If it is true that “All dolphins are
mammals” then “some dolphins are not
mammals” is false.
2. (O-A) if it is false that several criminals are
not bad individuals” then “all criminals are
bad individuals” is true.
3. (E-I) if it is true that “no angel is material”
then “some angels are material” is false.
4. (I-E) if it is false that “many cats are three-
legged animals” then “no cats are three-
legged animals” is true.
2. Contrary opposition
a. A logical opposition which exists between two propositions
which differ in quality.
b. Propositions A and E are considered as contraries.
c. Both of these propositions are sometimes referred to as
universals. However they are different in terms of quality.
d. There are two rules abiding contrary opposition:
i. If one is true then the other is false.
ii. If one is false then the other is doubtful. This means
that the proposition can be true or false.
A/E E/A
True False
False ?
iii. Examples:
1. (A-E) if it is true that “every melon is a
fruit” then it is false to say that “no melon is
a fruit”.
2. (A-E) if it is false that “all students are
advocates of communist ideology” then it is
doubtful to say that “no student advocates
communist ideology”.
3. (E-A) if it is true that “no man is an angel”
then it is false to say that “every man is an
angel”.
4. (E-A) if it is false that “nothing will change
after another world war” then it is doubtful
to say that everything will change after
another world war”.
3. Sub-contrary opposition
a. This logical opposition exists between two propositions
which are entirely different in terms of quality.
b. Sub-contrary is applicable only to propositions I and O.
c. These two propositions, I and O, are known as particulars.
d. There are two rules abiding sub-contrary opposition:
i. If one is false then the other is true.
ii. If one is true then the other is doubtful.
I/O O/I
False True
True ?
iii. Examples:
1. (I-O) if it is false to say that “some Chinese
are westerners” then it is true to say that
some Chinese are not westerners”.
2. (I-O) if it is true to say that “many families
are traditionalists” then it is doubtful to say
that “many families are not traditionalists”.
3. (O-I) if it is false to say that “some animals
are not bipeds” then it is true that “some
animals are bipeds”.
4. (O-I) if it is true that “many will not survive
after another world war” then it is doubtful
to say that “many will survive after another
world war”.
4. Sub-alternate opposition
a. A kind of logical opposition which exists between two
propositions which are different in terms of quantity.
b. (A-I) and (E-O) are two pairs that demonstrate this kind of
opposition.
c. This kind of opposition follows four rules:
i. If the universal is true then the particular is also
true.
ii. If the universal is false then the particular is
doubtful.
iii. If the particular is true then the universal is
doubtful.
iv. If the particular is false then the universal is also
false.
v. Truth table #1
A and E O and I
True True
False ?
vi. The truthfulness of the universals affects the
truthfulness of the particular; the falsity of the
universal does not guarantee the falsity of the
particular and makes the particular manifest a
doubtful character.
1. Examples:
2. (A-I) if it is true that “All men can think”
then it is also true that “some men can
think”.
3. (E-O) if it is true that “no lion is a monkey”
then it is also true that “some lions are not
monkeys”
4. (A-I) if it is false that “every man is
polygamous” then it is doubtful to say that
“some men are polygamous”.
5. (E-O) if it is false that “ no professors are
kind” then it is doubtful to say that “some
professors are not kind”
vii. Truth table #2
I and O A and E
True ?
False False
viii. The truthfulness of the particular does not reflect
the truthfulness of the universals. If the particulars
are true, the universals must be doubtful. However,
if the particulars are false then the universals are
also false.
1. Examples:
2. (I-A) if it is true that “some politicians are
doing things for their own political
advancement” then it is doubtful to say that
“all politicians are doing things for their
own political advancement”.
3. (O-E) if it is true that “ many professors are
parents” then it is doubtful to say that “no
professors are parents”
4. (I-A) if it is false that “several athletes are
drug users” then it is also false to say that
“all athletes are drug users”
5. (O-E) if it is false that “some scientists are
not learned people” then it is false to say
that “no scientists are learned people”.
 Logical way of Eduction
1. Eduction
a. It is a logical way of re-expressing the proposition by
interchanging its subject and predicate and in using or
removing its negative to retain its original meaning.
b. Eduction is sometime called the logical process of re-
expression.
2. Kinds of Eduction (conversion, obversion, contraposition and
inversion)
a. Conversion
i. It is a logical way of re-expressing the proposition
by interchanging its subject and predicate without
changing its quality.
ii. In re-phrasing the given proposition by
interchanging the subject and the predicate, the
quantity of either terms should not be over-
extended. A term is said to be over extended when
its quantity is raised from particular to universal.
However, a term which is reduced from universal to
particular is not considered over extended.
iii. The original proposition is called convertend. The
new formulation derived from the convertend is
called converse.
iv. Two fundamental rules of conversion:
1. Interchange the subject term and the
predicate term.
2. Retain the original quality of the
proposition.
v. There are two types of conversion: simple and
partial conversion.
1. Simple conversion is done by interchanging
the subject term and the predicate term
without affecting the quantity of both
(subject and predicate) and the meaning of
the original proposition.
a. This kind of proposition is viable
only to propositions I and E.
b. I proposition can be converted to I. E
proposition can be converted to E.
i. Examples
ii. (I-I) many treasure hunters
are successful businessmen.
Many successful
businessmen are treasure
hunters.
iii. (E-E) no Protestants are
Catholics.
No Catholics are Protestants.
c. Note: note A and O propositions
cannot be converted using simple
conversion. If A is converted its
subject (universal) will become its
predicate (particular). If the subject
will be interchanged with the
predicate then the quantity of the
predicate will be extended and this
will lead to a fallacy of illicit process
of the major term.
i. Ex. All dogs are animals (all
animals are dogs)
O proposition cannot be converted
because interchanging its subject
(particular) with the predicate
(universal) will mean an interchange
also with their individual qualities.
ii. Ex. some cats are not white
(some white [things] are not
cats)
iii. The meaning of the
proposition changes
removing the possibility of
the subject to the predicate.
2. Partial conversion takes place when the
quantity of the converse is different from the
convertend.
a. Partial conversion is possible only
with A proposition.
b. Ex.
c. (A-I) every cow is an animal.
Some animals are cow.
b. Obversion
i. It is a method of rephrasing the given proposition
by changing its quality without affecting its
quantity.
ii. The original proposition is called obvertend and the
new formulation is called obverse.
iii. Process of translation:
1. Change the quality of the proposition
without changing the quantity.
2. Change the predicate to its contradictory.
a. The predicate is changed to its
contradictory by adding the prefix
“non” which is the technical way in
classical logic to contradict a term.
iv. All the four categorical propositions may be
overted. (A-E) (E-A) (I-O) (O-I)
Examples:
1. (A-E) all dolphins are sea creatures.
No dolphins are non-sea creatures.
2. (E-A) no dolphins are land creatures.
All dolphins are non-land creatures.
3. (I-O) some girls are pretty.
Some girls are not non-pretty.
4. (O-I) several girls are not moody.
Several girls are non-moody.
c. Contraposition
i. It is a method of rephrasing a given proposition by
combining the process of obversion and conversion.
ii. The original proposition is called contaponend and
the new formulation is called contraposit or
contrapositve.
iii. There are two types of contrapostion partial and
complete.
1. Partial contraposition
a. The subject is the contradictory of
the original predicate, the quality is
changed and the predicate is the
former subject of the original
proposition.
b. Partial contraposition is possible
when the contraponend is either the
A, the E, or the O proposition.
c. Note: I proposition has no
contraposit, because its obverse is an
O and O has no conversion.
d. Procedure:
i. Obvert the original
proposition
ii. Convert the obverse.
Examples:
e. (A-E)
(Contraponend:)
All men are rational
(Step 1: obversion:)
No man is non-rational.
(Step 2: conversion :)
No non-rational (being) is man.
(Contrapositive:)
No non-rational (being) is man.
f. (E-I)
(Contraponend:)
No stone is a bread
(Step 1: obversion:)
All stones are non-bread
(Step 2: conversion :)
Some non-bread are stones
(Contrapositive:)
Some non-bread are stones
g. (O-I)
(Contraponend:)
Some toys are not mechanical
(Step 1: obversion:)
Some toys are non-mechanical
(Step 2: conversion :)
Some non-mechanical (thing) are
toys.
(Contrapositive:)
Some non-mechanical (thing) are
toys.
2. Complete contraposition
a. The subject is the contradictory of
the original predicate, the quality is
unchanged and the predicate is the
contrary of the former subject of the
original proposition.
b. Procedure:
i. Obvert the given
contraponend.
ii. Convert the obverse.
iii. Obvert the converse.
c. Note: I proposition has no
contrapositive.
examples:
d. (A-A)
(Contraponend:)
Every man is mortal
(Step 1: obversion:)
No man is non-mortal
(Step 2: conversion :)
No non-mortal is man
(Step 3: obversion :)
Every non-mortal is non-man.
(Contrapositive:)
Every non-mortal is non-man.
e. (E-O)
(Contraponend:)
No dog is a cat.
(Step 1: obversion:)
Every dog is non-cat.
(Step 2: conversion :)
Some non-cats are dogs
(Step 3: obversion :)
Some non-cats are not non-dogs
(Contrapositive:)
Some non-cats are not non-dogs
f. (O-O)
(Contraponend:)
Some overseas workers are not
domestic helpers.
(Step 1: obversion:)
Some overseas workers are non-
domestic helpers.
(Step 2: conversion :)
Some non-domestic helpers are
overseas workers
(Step 3: obversion :)
Some non-domestic helpers are not
non-overseas workers.
(Contrapositive:)
Some non-domestic helpers are not
non-overseas workers.
d. Inversion
i. It is a logical way of re-expressing the original
proposition or invertend into a new proposition or
inverse whereby the subject becomes the
contradictory of the original subject.
ii. The value of this method consists in helping us to
be alert to the quantity and the quality of the
subject, and to the quality of the copula.
iii. There are two types of inversion: simple and
complete inversion
iv. Simple inversion
1. Simple inversion normally happens if the
quality of the invertend is changed but
retaining the character of the original
predicate.
2. Simple inversion applies only to A and E
propositions.(A-O) (E-I)
3. Procedure:
a. Change the subject of the invertend
to its contradictory.
b. Change the quantity of the invertend.
c. Change the quality of the copula.
d. Retain the original predicate.
4. Examples:
a. (A-O)
(invertend)
All creatures are organisms
(step 1)
All non-creatures are organisms
(step 2)
Some non-creatures are organisms
(Step 3)
Some non-creatures are not
organisms.
(inverse)
Some non-creatures are not
organisms.
b. (E-I)
(invertend)
No man is a cow
(inverse)
Some non-man are cows.
v. Complete inversion
1. Complete inversion happens if the quality of
the invertend is unchanged yet the predicate
is now the contradictory of the original
predicate.
2. It applies to A and E propositions. (A-I) and
(E-O)
3. Procedure:
a. Change the subject to its
contradiction
b. Change the quantity of the
proposition
c. Retain the quality of the copula
d. Change the predicate to its
contradiction
4. Examples:
a. (A-I)
(invertend)
Every man is rational
(inverse)
Some non-man are non-rational.
b. (E-O)
(invertend)
No man is a cow
(inverse)
Some non-man are not non-cow
c. Reasoning and categorical syllogism
 Reasoning is defined as a mental operation in which propositions are
compared in order to create a logical conclusion or inference.
 Argumentation is defined as a process of laying down evidences in form
of propositions or judgments.
 Kinds of reasoning
1. Deduction
a. It is a kind of reasoning whereby the mind proceeds from
general to specific. This kind of reasoning necessitates the
comparison of two propositions to arrive at a specific
conclusion. This entire process determines whether the
argument is valid or invalid. It is said that the totality of
Aristotelian logic rests on this form.
b. Ex. All Filipinos are Asians
Some Asians are businessmen
Therefore, some Filipinos are businessmen.
2. Induction
a. It is a kind of reasoning whereby the mind proceeds from
the specific to general. This type was introduced by Francis
Bacon alongside with John Stuart Mill as a form of
criticism to the deductive nature of Aristotelian logic. By
nature, this kind of reasoning rests on the probability of the
argument rather than to its certainty or validity. Hence,
induction concerns more with the correctness or
incorrectness of the argument rather than its validity or
invalidity.
b. Though many philosophers regarded inductive reasoning to
be much inferior to the encompassing power of deductive
reasoning in its pursuit towards the attainment of truth,
nevertheless, the effectiveness of inductive reasoning is
prevalent scientific discoveries. Since its nature is to create
specific evidence which is necessary for the establishment
of a more correct scientific conclusion.
c. Ex. Pedro is a Filipino
Pedro is a hardworking man
Therefore, there is a probability that all hardworking men
are Filipinos.
 Syllogism
1. A syllogism is an oral or written discourse showing the agreement
or disagreement between two terms on the basis of their respective
relation to a common third term.
2. It is a deductive argument consisting of two propositions which are
compared to create a logical conclusion.
3. It is usually made up of three propositions, two of which are called
the premises (major premise and minor premise) and the other is
called the conclusion.
a. Major premise- it consists of a predicate term of the
conclusion and a middle term and naturally begins with a
universal quantifier.
b. Minor premise- it consists of a subject term of the
conclusion and a middle term.
c. Conclusion- it consists both the subject term which is found
in the minor premise and the predicate term which is found
in the major premise.
4. Embedded within the propositions are the following terms:
a. Major term- it is also called the predicate of the conclusion
and usually contained in the major premise.
b. Minor term- it is also called the subject of the conclusion
and usually contained in the minor premise.
c. Middle term- it is the connector of the premises and is
usually found both in the major and in the minor premises
but not in the conclusion.
 Rules of syllogisms
1. There are eight rules governing the syllogism and these are
grouped into: rules on terms and rules on propositions.
a. Rules on terms:
i. There must be three and only three terms.
ii. No term must have greater extension in the
conclusion than it has in the premises.
iii. The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.
iv. The middle term must be universal at least once.
b. Rules on propositions:
i. Two affirmative premises yield an affirmative
conclusion.
ii. Two negative premises yield no conclusion.
iii. When one premise is negative, the conclusion must
be negative; when one premise is particular, the
conclusion must be particular.
iv. When both premises are particular, there is no
conclusion.
1. Rule no. 1: There must be three and only three terms.
a. A syllogism expresses the identity or non-identity of two
terms, namely, the minor term and the major terms, on the
basis of their respective relation to a common third term,
the middle term. There can only be three terms. A
syllogism with less than three terms or more than three will
not establish a sequential relation.
b. A syllogism with four terms is erroneous and is called a
“logical quadruped”. This is committed either by
arithmetical addition of the fourth term, by equivocation or
by changing supposition.
i. Arithmetical addition of the fourth term consists in
adding a fourth term in the syllogism. Therefore no
possible conclusion can be derived since the minor
and the major terms do not have a common point of
reference.
1. Ex. Every dog is an animal
But every cactus is a plant
Therefore, ….
ii. Equivocation consists in assigning to any of the
terms two or more different meanings. Equivocation
causes confusion and makes an argument fallacious.
1. Ex. Every fly is an insect.
Some birds can fly.
Ergo, some birds are insects.
iii. Changing supposition has the same effect as
equivocation. It means assigning different meanings
to a given term in a syllogism.
1. Ex. Man is the subject of the sentence.
I am a man
Therefore I am the subject of the sentence.
a. In the major premise “man” has
logical supposition. In the minor
premise “man” has real supposition.
The conclusion is misleading.
2. Rule no. 2: No term must have greater extension in the conclusion
than it has in the premises.
a. This applies to the minor and major terms. It means that
neither of them may be universal in the conclusion when
either is a particular in the premises. A term which is
particular in the premise but universal in the conclusion is
considered “over-extended”. Over-extension is the error of
affirming to the whole what is applicable only to a part of
that whole.
b. An illicit minor is an over-extended minor term. An illicit
major is an over-extended major term. Both are not
admissible.
i. Ex. (illicit minor)
All mothers are female.
All mothers are human
Therefore, all humans are female.
1. In the minor premise, “human” is particular
because it is the predicate of an affirmative
proposition. In the conclusion, it is universal
because it is modified by the quantifier
“all”; thus “human” becomes an
overextended term.
ii. Ex. No car is an animal.
But every car is a machine.
Ergo, no machine is an animal.
1. While the conclusion is true, it is not
admissible since the subject, “machine”, is
an overextended term.
iii. Ex.(illicit major)
Every catholic is a Christian.
But no Baptist is a catholic.
Therefore, no Baptist is Christian.
1. In the major premise, “Christian” is
particular since it is the predicate of an
affirmative proposition. In the conclusion, it
is universal because it is the predicate of a
negative proposition.
3. Rule no. 3: The middle term must not appear in the conclusion.
a. The middle term is the common third which serves as the
medium of contact between the minor and the major terms.
Therefore, it has no place in the conclusion which,
precisely, is the affirmation or the negation of the relation
between the minor and the major terms.
i. Ex. Every student is a learner
Every learner is capable of progress
Ergo, every learner is a student.
4. Rule no.4: The middle term must be universal at least once.
a. A particular term stands for an indefinite “some” of a
whole. Its truth does not necessarily refer to the whole as
such. Further, “some” does not refer to this or that specific
part of the whole. Thus, if the middle term were to be a
particular in both premises, it cannot exactly identify itself
with either the minor or the major. It is possible that the
minor may identify with “this some” of the whole, while
the major identifies with “that other some” of the same
whole. It is only when the middle term is taken as a
universal, at least once, that we are able to avoid this
ambiguity. A middle term which is twice a particular is
called undistributed middle.
i. Ex. (Undistributed middle)
Every man is human
But every philosopher is human
Ergo, every philosopher is a man.
1. The middle term “human” is particular in
the major and in the minor premise, since it
is the predicate of affirmative propositions.
The fact that “some” humans are male and
“some others” are females makes the
conclusion ambiguous.
ii. Ex. Some taxes are unjust
But some taxes are beneficial to society
Ergo, some beneficial to society are unjust.
5. Rule no.5: Two affirmative premises yield an affirmative
conclusion.
a. If two premises are affirmative then their conclusion will
also be affirmative. So it is impossible that affirmative
premises will result to a negative conclusion.
i. Ex. (correct)
Every novel is a narrative.
Some biographies are novels
Therefore, some biographies are narratives.
ii. Ex. (wrong)
Every mammal is an animal
Every cow is a mammal
Ergo, no cow is an animal
6. Rule no.6: two negative premises will produce no conclusion.
a. If both premises are negative, it could only mean that both
terms do not identify with the common third term.
Therefore, nothing is established between them and,
consequently, no conclusion is possible.
i. Ex. No dog is a man
Andres is not a dog
Therefore, ….
b. It does not follow that because two things are not identical
in some aspect, they are also not identical in all other
possible aspects. But drawing a conclusion from two
negative premises is tantamount to concluding from
insufficient evidence or data. It belongs to the form of
inference that the middle term must identify with one of the
other terms; otherwise, we learn nothing about the
relationship of such terms.
7. Rule no.7: if one premise is negative, the conclusion must be
negative; if one premise is particular, the conclusion must be
particular.
a. Since the conclusion comes from the premises, it cannot
declare more than the premises declare. This is what we
mean when we say that the “conclusion follows the weaker
side”, that is, it must not exceed the strength of evidence
presented by the premises. The conclusion therefore, may
not imply what the premises do not imply. It may not
affirm what is denied in the premise.
i. Ex. (wrong copula)
No tree is abundant
Every acacia is a tree.
Therefore, every acacia is abundant.
ii. Ex. (over-extended)
Every employee is a wage earner
But some students are employees
Therefore, every student is a wage earner.
8. Rule no.8: when both premises are particular, there is no
conclusion.
a. Two particulars cannot produce any conclusion without
violating either rule no.2 or no.4. Two particular premises
lead to the fallacy of illicit major or the fallacy of
undistributed middle.
 Figures and moods
 Figures refer to the actual arrangement of the middle terms in the syllogism.
 Accordingly, if the middle term will be arranged in the syllogism there will be
four possible ways to do it. Each arrangement of the middle term leads to the
four figures in syllogisms.
 Note: if the symbols or letters appeared small it follows that the
quantity attributed to them is particular. If the symbols or letters
appeared capital it follows that the quantity attached to them is
universal.
 First figure: (SUB-PRE)
 In syllogism, the middle term is the subject of the major premise and
the predicate of the minor premise. In short, the middle term is the
SUB-PRE.
M P
S M
S P
 Ex. (valid) M+p
All merchants are entrepreneurs s+m
Some rich people are merchants s+p
Ergo, some rich people are entrepreneurs.
 Note: the only way that a valid syllogistic argument can be attained
using the first figure is to stick to the rule that the major premise will
have to be universal and that the minor premise must be affirmative. If
the second premise is negative this will lead to the fallacy of illicit
major term. (the major term which is particular predicate in the major
premise will become a universal in the conclusion)
 Ex. (invalid) M+p
All dolphins are aquatic creatures s-M
Some mammals are not dolphins s-P
Ergo, some mammals are not aquatic creatures
 Second figure: (PRE-PRE)
 In syllogism, the middle term is the predicate of the major and the
minor premise. In short the middle term is the PRE-PRE.
P M
S M
S P
 Ex. All Catholics are Christians P+m
Some nurses are not Christians s-M
Ergo, some nurses are not Catholics. s-P
 To attain a valid form of syllogistic argument
using the second figure, it is essential that the major premise must be
universal and that one of the premises (either major or minor) will
have to be negative. If both premises are affirmative then it will result
to the fallacy of undistributed middle term.
 Ex. (invalid)
All lawyers are legal counsels P+m
Some activists are legal counsels s+m
Ergo, some activists are lawyers. s+p
 Third figure: (SUB-SUB)
 In this figure, the middle term is the subject of the major and the minor
premise. In short, the middle term is the SUB-SUB.
M P
M S
S P
 Ex. (valid)
All dictionaries are books of definitions. M+p
Some dictionaries are locally authored materials. m+s
Ergo, some locally authored materials are books of s+p
definitions.
 The major premise must be universal and the minor must be particular
and affirmative so that the fallacy of illicit minor term will be avoided.
In the end, the conclusion must also become particular.
 Ex. (invalid)
All philosophers are intelligent people M+p
All philosophers are deep thinkers M+s
Ergo, all deep thinkers are intelligent people. S+p
 Fourth figure: (PRE-SUB)
 In this figure, the middle term is the predicate of the major premise
and the subject of the minor premise. In other words, the middle term
is the PRE-SUB.
P M
M S
S P
 Ex. (valid) P+m
All weight lifters are athletes M-S
No athletes are weaklings. S-P
Ergo, no weaklings are weight lifters.

 Ex. No managers are laborers P-M


Some laborers are factory workers. m+s
Ergo, some factory workers are not managers. s-P

 It is important that the major term must be universal whether it is


affirmative or negative in quality. If the major premise is affirmative
then the minor premise must be universal and negative so that we may
avoid the fallacy of undistributed middle term. If the major premise is
negative then the minor premise must be affirmative and particular so
that the fallacy of illicit process of minor term will be avoided. If the
minor premise is universal and negative then the conclusion must be
universal and negative but if these things will not be followed then a
fallacy of illicit process of the minor term will result from these.

 Ex. (invalid)
P+m
All ballerinas are dancers
M+s
All dancers are entertainers.
Ergo, all entertainers are ballerinas. S+p

 Ex. (invalid)
No managers are laborers. P-M
All laborers are minimum wage earners. M+s
Ergo, no minimum wage earners are managers. S-P

 Moods
 Moods refer to the order of propositions according to their quality and
quantity.
 There will be 19 valid ways of arranging the propositions according to their
quality and quantity.
1. Valid moods for figure 1: (SUB-PRE)
a. Barbara (AAA)
All artists are creative people. (A)
All sculptors are artists (A)
Ergo, all sculptors are creative people (A)
b. Darii (AII)
All herbs are plants (A)
Some medicinal substances are herbs (I)
Therefore, some medicinal substances are plants (I)
c. Celarent (EAE)
No elephants are tigers (E)
All animals with long flexible trunks, tusks and huge ears are
elephants (A)
Therefore, no animals with long flexible trunks, tusks and huge
ears are tigers. (E)
d. Ferio (EIO)
No morally upright people are corrupt. (E)
Some political leaders are morally upright.(I)
Ergo, some political leaders are not corrupt. (O)
2. Valid moods for figure 2 (PRE-PRE)
a. Baroco (AOO)
All state leaders are politicians. (A)
Some Filipinos are not politicians (O)
Ergo, some Filipinos are not state leaders (O)
b. Canestres (AEE)
All nuns are religious (A)
No communists are religious (E)
Therefore, no communists are nuns. (E)
c. Cesare (EAE)
No morons are philosophers (E)
All existentialists are philosophers (A)
Ergo, no existentialists are morons (E)
d. Festino (EIO)
No mendicants are rich people (E)
Some Filipinos are rich people (I)
Ergo, some Filipinos are not mendicants (O)
3. Valid moods for figure 3 (SUB-SUB)
a. Darapti (AAI)
All marine biologists are scientists (A)
All marine biologists are water explorers (A)
Therefore, some water explorers are scientists (I)
b. Datisi (AII)
All boxers are athletes.(A)
Some boxers are world champions (I)
Ergo, some world champions are athletes.
c. Felapton (EAO)
No reindeers are hares (E)
All reindeers are quadrupeds. (A)
Ergo, some quadrupeds are not hares (O)
d. Ferison (EIO)
No youngsters are old people (E)
Some youngsters are scavengers (I)
Ergo, some scavengers are not old people (O)
e. Disamis (IAI)
Some historical people are heroes (I)
All historical people are dead (A)
Ergo, some dead (people) are heroes (I)
f. Bocardo (OAO)
i. Some modern philosophers are not idealists (O)
ii. But, all modern philosophers are intelligent men (A)
iii. Ergo, some intelligent men are not idealists (O)
4. Valid moods for figure 4 (PRE-SUB)
a. Bramantip (AAI)
All lions are animals (A)
All animals are brutes (A)
Ergo, some brutes are lions (I)
b. Camenes (AEE)
All good men are trustworthy (people) (A)
No trustworthy (people) are criminals (E)
Ergo, no criminals are good men (E)
c. Fesapo (EAO)
No bodyguards are superstars. (E)
All superstars are famous people (A)
Ergo, some famous people are not bodyguards (O)
d. Fresison (EIO)
No circles are squares (E)
Some squares are found in paintings (I)
Ergo, some found in paintings are not circles (O)
e. Dimaris (IAI)
i. Some finger foods are delicious (I)
ii. All delicious (foods) are tasteful (A)
iii. Ergo, some tasteful are finger foods. (I)

 Hypothetical syllogism
o It is a syllogism which contains a major premise that is hypothetical proposition.
1. Conditional syllogism
 Normally, a conditional syllogism is characterized as having a conditional
major premise. Its minor premise and its conclusion are formulated
following the form of categorical propositions.
 Rules of conditional syllogism:
 Posit the antecedent in the minor premise and posit the consequent
in the conclusion. This rule is sometimes referred to as modus
ponens or positing mode. In the event that this rule is not followed
then an invalid form will certainly emerge.
o Ex. (valid)
If apples are nutritious then they are good for the body
But apples are nutritious.
Ergo, they are good for the body.
o Ex (invalid)
If apples are nutritious then they are good for the body
But, apples are good for the body.
Ergo, they are nutritious.
 Sublate the consequence in the minor premise and sublate the
antecedent in the conclusion. This rule is also referred to as modus
tollens or sublating mode.
o Ex (valid)
If Peter is a cancer patient then he is very ill
But Peter is not very ill
Ergo, he is not a cancer patient.
o Ex (invalid)
If Peter is a cancer patient then he is very ill
But, Peter is not a cancer patient.
Ergo, he is not very ill.
2. Conjunctive syllogism
 It is a hypothetical syllogism wherein the major premise is a conjunctive
proposition, whose minor premise posits one member of the major
premise and whose conclusion sublates the other member of the major
premise.
 Rule of conjunctive syllogism
 Posit one member of the major premise in the minor premise and
sublate the other member in the conclusion. This is sometimes
called Ponendo-tollens.
o Ex(valid)
You cannot be a manager and a janitor at the same time.
But, you are a manager.
Ergo, you are not a janitor.
 The minor premise can only posit one member of the major and
cannot afford to sublate first any one of the members because in
doing so it will lead to an invalid form. Likewise, the conclusion
cannot afford to posit the remaining member of the major premise
since it will also lead to an invalid form.
o Ex (invalid)
You cannot be a manager and a janitor at the same time.
But you are not a manager.
Ergo, you are a janitor.
 The consequent do not flow naturally flow from the
thought content of the antecedent. there is no valid
sequence between the antecedent and the
consequence.( not to be a manager does not
necessarily follow that one is immediately a janitor)
3. Disjunctive syllogism
 It is a hypothetical syllogism in which the major premise is a disjunctive
proposition consisting of alternatives. The minor premise posits or
sublates one of the members of the major premise and whose conclusion
posits or sublates the other member of the major premise.
 Rules of disjunctive syllogism:
 If the minor premise posits one or more members of the major
premise, the conclusion must sublate the other remaining
member(s) (ponendo-tollens)
o Ex. (valid)
The living thing is either a man or an animal or a plant
But, the living thing is a plant.
Ergo, it is not a man or an animal.
o Ex. (invalid)
Man is either biped or quadruped
But, man is biped
Ergo, man is quadruped.
 If the minor premise sublates one or more members of the major
premise then the conclusion must posit the remaining member(s)
of the major premise.
o Ex. (valid)
Water is either warm or cold or lukewarm
But the water is neither warm nor cold.
Ergo, it is lukewarm
o Ex. (invalid)
Mars is either a planet or an asteroid
But, Mars is not an asteroid.
Therefore, it is not a planet.

 Special types of syllogism


1. Enthymeme
 It is a special type of syllogism in which one of the premises or the
conclusion is omitted.
 There are three orders of enthymeme.
 First order: if the major premise is omitted.
 Second order: if the minor premise is omitted
 Third order: if the conclusion is omitted.
 Due to the omission of one of its premises, logicians do not consider
enthymeme as a form of syllogism in the strictest sense but rather as an
incomplete statement of any of the forms we have previously studied.
 Ex. (given)
Every artist is imaginative
But Raphael Sanzio is an artist
Ergo, he is imaginative.
 Ex. (first order)
Raphael Sanzio is an artist
For this reason, Raphael Sanzio is imaginative.
 Ex. (second order)
Raphael Sanzio is an artist
Because, every artist is imaginative
 Ex. (third order)
Raphael Sanzio is an artist
And every artist is imaginative.
2. Polysyllogism
 It is a special type of syllogism consisting of a series of syllogisms so
arranged that the conclusion of the one is the premise of the other.
 Every polysyllogism must adhere to the principles of simple syllogism.
 Ex. Man is a rational animal
A rational animal is a knowledgeable one.
A knowledgeable one is a thinking being
A thinking being is an intelligent creature
Ergo, an intelligent creature is man.
3. Sorites
 It is regarded by logicians as a form of poly syllogism consisting of a
series of syllogisms of which the conclusions except for the last are
omitted.
 Sorites may be classified as either categorical or conditional depending on
the manner of expression.
 Categorical sorites are further classified as either Aristotelian (sometimes
considered as progressive sorites) or Goclenian (sometimes considered as
regressive sorites).
 Aristotelian Sorites
o In Aristotelian sorites, the predicate of each premise is the
subject of the conclusion.
 Ex. Philippines is an archipelago. A is B
An archipelago is a land surrounded B is C
by water. C is D
A land surrounded by water is an D is not E
island.
An island is a mass of land.
A mass of land is not an ocean. Ergo, A is
Ergo, Philippines is not an ocean. not E
 Goclenian Sorites
o In the Goclenian Sorites, the same premises are shown but
their order is inversed.
 A mass of land is not an ocean. D is not E
An island is a mass of land. C is D
A land surrounded by water is an B is C
island. A is B
An archipelago is a land surrounded
by water.
Philippines is an archipelago. Ergo, A is
 Ergo, Philippines is not an ocean not E
4. Epichireme
 It is a categorical syllogism which has an added explanation attached to
one or both of its premises.
 It is simple when only one of the premises has an added explanation.
 It is compound when both of its premises carry an explanation.
 Ex. (simple)
Man is rational, because he is capable of abstract reasoning,
But Pedro is a man,
Therefore, Pedro is rational.
 Ex. (compound)
Man is rational, because he is capable of abstract reasoning,
But Pedro is a man, because he has human nature,
Therefore, Pedro is rational.

Вам также может понравиться