Introduction to Logic

Chapter 1

The Fundamentals of Reasoning

Lesson 1: Logic, Defined

Logic is the study of reasoning and the principles that guide correct thinking. It helps us distinguish valid
arguments from invalid ones, allowing us to analyze statements, solve problems, and make informed
decisions. Through understanding logic, we can better assess the truth of claims and identify fallacies
that might undermine an argument.

The word "logic" comes from the Greek term logikē, which is derived from logos, meaning "reason,"
"word," or "speech." Over time, the concept evolved to refer specifically to the study of reasoning and
the systematic principles governing valid inference.

Reasoning

In logic, reasoning is the mental process of moving from what we already know or assume (premises)
to what follows from it (a conclusion). It involves identifying relevant information, connecting ideas
through rules of inference, and judging whether the conclusion is supported by su icient and
appropriate reasons. Reasoning can be deductive, where the conclusion must follow if the premises
are true, or inductive, where the premises make the conclusion probable rather than certain.

Purpose of the Discipline

The purpose of logic is to provide standards for good reasoning. In everyday life we constantly draw
conclusions: we interpret news reports, weigh advice, decide what to believe, and choose what to do.
Logic helps us examine whether these conclusions are supported by adequate reasons. It does this by
focusing not on who speaks most confidently, but on whether the conclusion follows from the
information given.

First, logic trains us to evaluate arguments. It o ers tools for distinguishing between valid and invalid
forms of reasoning, so that we can tell the di erence between a conclusion that is merely persuasive
and one that is properly supported. This skill is essential in academic study, public debate, and
professional decision-making, where claims must be tested rather than simply accepted.

Second, logic promotes clarity. Many disagreements persist because key terms are vague or used in
di erent senses. Logical analysis encourages us to define concepts, separate assumptions from
conclusions, and rewrite statements in clearer forms. By reducing ambiguity, logic makes discussion
more productive and helps prevent confusion.

Third, logic helps us detect errors in reasoning, commonly called fallacies. These include mistakes
such as drawing sweeping conclusions from too few cases, attacking a person instead of addressing
the issue, or assuming that because two events occur together one must have caused the other.
Learning to recognize such patterns makes our thinking more careful and our arguments more credible.

Finally, logic provides a foundation for many fields. It underlies mathematics and supports the methods
of the sciences, where conclusions must be derived from evidence. It informs law, where judgments
depend on reasons and rules of inference. It also plays a central role in computer science, where
programming and algorithm design depend on precise, step-by-step reasoning. For these reasons, logic
is not only a subject to be studied, but also a practical skill for thinking well.

Lesson 2: Anatomy of an Argument

An argument in logic is not a quarrel; it is a set of statements in which one statement (the conclusion)
is claimed to follow from one or more other statements (the premises). To analyze an argument well,
we must identify its parts and see how they are connected.

The premises are the reasons or evidence o ered in support of the conclusion.

The conclusion is the claim the arguer wants us to accept. When reading or listening, it often helps to
ask two questions:

(1) What is the main point being argued for? (the conclusion) and

(2) What reasons are given to support it? (the premises).

Arguments are often signaled by indicator words. Premise indicators include because, since, for, and
given that. Conclusion indicators include therefore, thus, so, and hence. These words do not guarantee
that a passage is an argument, but they are useful clues for locating premises and conclusions.

Not every premise is always stated. Many arguments contain implicit premises (unstated assumptions)
that the speaker expects the audience to supply. Identifying these hidden assumptions is important
because an argument may appear strong until its missing premise is made explicit and examined.

Examples:
Premise 1: All students who submit the requirements on time may take the final exam.
Premise 2: Mara submitted the requirements on time.
Conclusion: Therefore, Mara may take the final exam.

Premise 1: All assets have debit balances

Premise 2: Salaries Expense have a debit balance
Conclusion: Salaries Expense is an asset

Lesson 3: Deduction vs. Induction

Reasoning in logic is commonly classified as deductive or inductive. Understanding this di erence

helps us evaluate arguments fairly, because each type is judged by its own standard.

Deduction moves from general principles to a specific conclusion. In deduction, the premises are
intended to guarantee the conclusion;

Example 1:
Premise 1: All mammals are warm-blooded.
Premise 2: Whales are mammals.
Conclusion: Therefore, whales are warm-blooded.

Example 2:
Premise 1: All companies with large assets are profitable. (False premise)
Premise 2: XYZ Company has large assets.
Conclusion: Therefore, XYZ Company is profitable.

Example 3:
Premise 1: All employees who work overtime are highly productive. (False premise)
Premise 2: Maria works overtime.
Conclusion: Therefore, Maria is highly productive.

Induction moves from observations or specific cases to a broader conclusion (amplitative). In

induction, the premises are intended to make the conclusion likely.

An inductive argument does not claim to guarantee its conclusion; instead, it claims that the
conclusion is probable given the evidence.

Example 1:

Premise 1: ABC Store’s sales increased after o ering online delivery.

Premise 2: DEF Store’s sales also increased after o ering online delivery.

Premise 3: GHI Store experienced the same result.

Conclusion: Therefore, online delivery probably increases sales for most businesses.

Ø This is inductive because the conclusion is based on repeated observations.

Example 2:

The company’s profits increased every year after adopting automation technology.

Conclusion: Therefore, automation technology likely improves profitability.

Example 3:

In recent months, customers have purchased more eco-friendly products.

Conclusion: Therefore, consumers probably prefer environmentally sustainable products.

In practice, deduction is common in mathematics and formal proofs, where conclusions must follow
with necessity from definitions and rules. Induction is common in everyday life and the empirical
sciences, where we generalize from samples, past experiences, measurements, and patterns. Both
forms of reasoning are valuable, but confusing one for the other can lead to unfair criticism, for example,
rejecting an inductive conclusion because it is not certain, or accepting a deductive conclusion even
when the premises are doubtful.

Lesson 4: Logical Forms

In logic, a logical form is the underlying pattern or structure of an argument, the way its statements are
arranged so that the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises. Logical form abstracts away
from the specific subject matter and focuses on the relationships between statements. Two arguments
can talk about very di erent things (students, whales, money, or laws) but still share the same logical
form, and therefore rise or fall together in validity.

Form vs. Content. The content of an argument is what it is about (its topic), while the form is its
skeleton. To see the di erence, compare these two arguments:

Argument A
Premise 1: If a student submits the requirements on time, then the student may take the final exam.
Premise 2: Mara submitted the requirements on time.
Conclusion: Therefore, Mara may take the final exam.

Argument B
Premise 1: If a number is divisible by 4, then it is even.
Premise 2: 20 is divisible by 4.
Conclusion: Therefore, 20 is even.

Although these arguments discuss di erent topics, they share the same pattern:

Logical form:
Premise 1: If P, then Q.
Premise 2: P.
Conclusion: Therefore, Q.

Here, P and Q stand for whole statements (propositions). Any argument you can create by substituting
statements into this pattern is called an instance of the form. A form is valid if every instance of it is
valid—meaning there is no possible case where the premises are true and the conclusion false.

Common Valid Deductive Forms

1. Modus Ponens (A irming the Antecedent)

Form: If P, then Q. P. Therefore, Q.
Example: If the receipt is valid, then the expense will be reimbursed. The receipt is valid. Therefore,
the expense will be reimbursed.

2. Modus Tollens (Denying the Consequent)

Form: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P.
Example: If the alarm system has alarmed, then the red light is on. The red light is not on. Therefore,
the alarm system did not alarm.

3. Hypothetical Syllogism (Chain Argument)

Form: If P, then Q. If Q, then R. Therefore, if P, then R.
Example: If the company upgrades its servers, then the system becomes faster. If the system
becomes faster, then customer wait time decreases. Therefore, if the company upgrades its servers,
customer wait time decreases.

4. Disjunctive Syllogism
Form: Either P or Q. Not P. Therefore, Q.
Example: Either the error comes from the data entry or from the formula. It is not from the data entry.
Therefore, it is from the formula.

Learning these forms is useful because many everyday arguments are variations of them. However,
some patterns look similar but are actually invalid. Recognizing the di erence prevents common
reasoning mistakes.

Common Invalid Forms (Formal Fallacies)

1. A irming the Consequent (Invalid)

Form: If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.
Why invalid: Q might be true for some other reason.
Example: If it is raining, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore, it is raining. (The streets
could be wet because of a street cleaner.)

2. Denying the Antecedent (Invalid)

Form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.
Why invalid: Q could still occur even if P does not.
Example: If I study, then I will pass the exam. I did not study. Therefore, I will not pass the exam. (It is
still possible to pass for other reasons.)

How to Test a Form. To show that a form is invalid, it is enough to find one counterexample: a possible
situation where the premises are true but the conclusion is false. This is why logic often uses letters (P,
Q, R)—they help us focus on structure and search for counterexamples without being distracted by the
topic.

Putting Arguments into Standard Form. Many arguments are easier to analyze after rewriting them
clearly. For example, statements like “Only if,” “unless,” and “provided that” can often be rewritten using
the basic connectives if…then, and, or, and not. Once the statements are in a clear, consistent format,
you can compare the argument to known valid and invalid forms.

Practice Exercises

Identify the logical form of each argument below. Then label it as valid or invalid by matching it to the
forms in this lesson.

(1) If the report is accurate, then the manager will approve it. The manager approved it. Therefore, the
report is accurate.
(2) Either the meeting is on Monday or it is on Tuesday. It is not on Monday. Therefore, it is on Tuesday.
(3) If the computer is infected, then it runs slowly. The computer is not running slowly. Therefore, it is
not infected.
(4) If the policy is updated, then employees will receive an email. The policy was not updated.
Therefore, employees will not receive an email.
(5) If the store o ers discounts, then sales increase. The store o ers discounts. Therefore, sales
increase.

Lesson 5: Evaluating Deductive Arguments: Defining Validity & Soundness

To evaluate arguments fairly, we must use standards that match the kind of reasoning being used. For
deductive arguments, the key standards are validity and soundness.

A deductive argument is valid when its logical structure guarantees the conclusion: if the premises were
true, the conclusion could not be false. Validity is therefore about the form of the argument, not about
whether the premises are actually true. An argument can be valid even if it contains false premises, as
long as the conclusion follows necessarily from them.

Example 1:
Premise 1: All entrepreneurs become millionaires. (False premise)

Premise 2: John is an entrepreneur.

Conclusion: Therefore, John will become a millionaire.

Ø Not all entrepreneurs become wealthy. However, since the argument follows a logical form, this
is still valid.

Example 2:

Premise 1: All companies that earn high profits are free from debt.

Premise 2: ABC Corporation earns high profits.

Conclusion: Therefore, ABC Corporation is free from debt.

Ø Many profitable companies still have debt.

A deductive argument is sound when it is valid and all of its premises are true. Soundness is the ideal
for deduction because it ensures both proper reasoning (valid form) and factual correctness (true
premises).

For example consider this argument:

Premise 1: “All mammals are warm-blooded

Premise 2: Whales are mammals;

Conclusion: Therefore whales are warm-blooded”

In this argument, it is valid, and because its premises are true, it is also sound.

Lesson 6: Evaluating Inductive Arguments: Defining Strength, and Cogency (for induction)

For inductive arguments, the standards shift because induction aims at probability rather than
certainty. An inductive argument is strong when the premises make the conclusion highly likely—
meaning that, given the evidence, the conclusion is reasonable to accept even though it could still be
false. Strength comes in degrees: the larger and more representative the evidence, the stronger the
induction tends to be. An inductive argument is cogent when it is strong and its premises are true (and
relevant), so that the conclusion is not only probable but probable on the basis of good evidence.

Examples:

A survey of 5,000 customers across the Philippines showed that 82% prefer digital payments.
Multiple retail companies reported increased digital transactions this year.
Conclusion: Therefore, Filipino consumers probably prefer digital payments
Ø Argument is strong because the sample is large and evidence is consistent.

In the past three years, employees who completed accounting software training consistently achieved higher
performance ratings.
Most promoted employees also completed the training.
Conclusion: Therefore, accounting software training probably improves employee performance.
Ø Strong because repeated observations support the conclusion.

One student entrepreneur became successful without finishing college.

Conclusion: Therefore, college education is unnecessary for business success.

Ø Weak because the evidence is too limited.

My friend bought one expensive laptop that broke easily.

Conclusion: Therefore, expensive laptops are unreliable.

Ø Weak because the conclusion is based on only one case

One employee worked overtime and received a promotion.

Conclusion: Therefore, employees who work overtime will probably get promoted.
Ø Weak because many other factors a ect promotions.

Chapter 2: Informal Logic

Lesson 1: Informal Fallacies

Overview

An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that arises from the content of what is said, the language
used, or the context of the discussion, rather than from the argument’s logical form alone. Informal
fallacies often sound persuasive because they appeal to emotions, common beliefs, or misleading
word choices, even though the reasons given do not adequately support the conclusion.

This contrasts with formal fallacies, which are mistakes in an argument’s structure (for example,
a irming the consequent or denying the antecedent). With informal fallacies, the structure may look
acceptable, but the reasoning fails because the evidence is irrelevant, too weak, ambiguous, or
emotionally loaded. Also, noticing a fallacy does not automatically prove that the conclusion is false; it
shows that the argument, as presented, does not properly justify the conclusion.

How to Spot Informal Fallacies

· Ask: What is the conclusion? and What are the reasons? If you cannot clearly separate them, the
passage may rely on persuasion rather than support.
· Check relevance: Do the reasons actually address the conclusion, or do they distract (for
example, by changing the topic)?
· Check su iciency: Even if relevant, are the reasons strong enough, or are they based on too few
cases or weak evidence?
· Watch for loaded language: Are emotions (fear, anger, pride) being used in place of evidence?
· Look for ambiguity: Is a key word used in more than one meaning, making the conclusion seem
to follow when it does not?

Common Informal Fallacies (with Examples)

A. Fallacies of Relevance (the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion)

1. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)

Instead of addressing the argument, the speaker attacks the person making it (their character,
motives, or circumstances).
Example:

“Don’t accept Carlo’s proposal on improving inventory controls. He failed one subject last semester,
so he clearly doesn’t understand systems.”
2. Straw Man
The speaker misrepresents an opponent’s position (making it weaker or more extreme) and then
refutes the distorted version.
Example:

#1

Ana: “We should require receipts for reimbursements.”

Ben: “So you want to make it impossible for employees to get reimbursed at all. That’s unreasonable.”

#2

Person A: “Students should have less homework so they can balance school and mental health.”

Person B: “So you want students to stop learning altogether?”

#3

Manager: “We should allow employees to work from home twice a week.”

Executive: “Apparently you want the o ice to shut down permanently.”

#4

Doctor: “People should reduce sugar intake.”

Patient: “So now we’re never allowed to enjoy dessert again?”

3. Red Herring
The speaker introduces an irrelevant point to distract from the issue under discussion.

Example 1:

Person 1: “Why are our expenses over budget?”

Person 2: “The real problem is that other departments don’t appreciate how hard we work.”

Example 2:

Boss: “Why are you always late to meetings?”

Employee: “I actually work harder than everyone else.”

Example 3:

Reporter: “What will you do about rising inflation?”

Politician: “What people really care about is how patriotic our country is.”

Example 4:

Manager: “Why did sales decrease this quarter?”

Employee: “Our o ice has really improved its interior design lately.”

Example 5:
Parent: “Did you break the vase?”

Child: “You never let me go out with my friends.”

4. Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon)

The argument claims that something is true or good simply because many people believe or do it.
Example:

“Everyone in our class says the policy is unfair, so it must be unfair.”

“Millions of people use this app, so it’s completely safe.”

“Most students cheated on the test, so it’s okay.”

“Everyone in town supports this candidate, so they must be the right choice.”

“This post has millions of likes, so the information must be true.”

“Everybody buys the newest phone model, so I need one too.”

“Everyone stays overtime without pay, so you should too.”

B. Fallacies of Weak Induction (the premises are relevant, but they provide weak support)

5. Hasty Generalization
A broad conclusion is drawn from too few or unrepresentative examples.
Examples:

“I met two accountants who were not friendly. Therefore, accountants are unfriendly.”

“One employee used company funds improperly. All employees in the finance department are
dishonest.”

“My cousin started a business and failed. Entrepreneurship is too risky for everyone.”

“We posted one ad on social media and sales did not increase. Social media marketing does not
work.”

“Three Accountancy students failed the exam. The Accountancy program must be weak.”

“One professor gave di icult quizzes. All professors in the department are unreasonable.”

“My first online order arrived late. Online shopping is unreliable.”

6. False Cause (Post Hoc)

The argument assumes that because one event happened after another, the first event must have
caused the second.
Examples:

“We changed our logo last month, and sales decreased after that. Therefore, the new logo caused the
decrease in sales.”

“After installing new o ice plants, employee productivity improved. Therefore, the plants caused
higher productivity.”

“I wore my lucky shirt during the exam and got a high score. The shirt caused my success.”
“I drank co ee before the meeting, and the meeting went well. Co ee caused the successful
meeting.”

“The rooster crowed before sunrise. Therefore, the rooster caused the sun to rise.”

7. Slippery Slope
The argument claims that a small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of events ending in an
extreme outcome, without enough evidence for the “inevitable” chain.
Example:

“If we allow one deadline extension, soon no one will follow deadlines, and the company will
collapse.”

“If companies start using AI tools, eventually humans will lose all jobs.”

“If workers are allowed longer lunch breaks, eventually no one will work seriously anymore.”

“If students are allowed to use calculators in quizzes, eventually they will forget how to do basic
math.”

“If management approves one employee’s leave request during peak season, everyone will start
taking leave.”

8. False Dilemma (Either–Or) (or False Dichotomy)

The argument presents only two options when more possibilities exist.
Examples:

“Either we remove all classroom rules, or students will never learn to think for themselves.”

“Either we spend heavily on advertising, or nobody will buy our product.”

“You either become an entrepreneur or remain poor forever.”

“Either you invest in stocks, or you will never become financially successful.”

“Either we cancel the trip, or everything will go wrong.”

“Either strict rules are enforced, or society will become chaotic.”

C. Fallacies of Presumption (the argument assumes what it needs to prove or relies on an unjustified
assumption)

9. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

The conclusion is assumed in the premises, so no real support is given.
Example:

“This policy is the best policy because it is better than all the other policies.”

“The manager is e ective because he is a good leader.”

“This product is the best because no other product is better.”

The company policy is fair because it treats employees fairly.”

“The financial statements are accurate because the accountant prepared them correctly.”

“Successful entrepreneurs succeed because they are successful people.”

“Students should obey school rules because the rules must be obeyed.”

10. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

The argument claims something is true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has
not been proven true.
Example:

“No one has proven that the new system is insecure, so it must be completely secure.”

“Since there is no proof that the company manipulated its financial statements, the company must be
honest.”

“There’s no evidence that online classes reduce learning quality, so they are just as e ective as face-
to-face classes.”

“There is no evidence that employees dislike the new policy, so everyone must support it.”

“The company has never been caught committing fraud, so it must be honest.”

“Nobody proved aliens are not visiting Earth, so aliens must be visiting.”

“I have never seen any evidence that luck is not real, so lucky charms work.”

D. Fallacies of Ambiguity (the argument trades on unclear or shifting meanings)

11. Equivocation
A key word or phrase is used in two di erent meanings within the same argument, making the
reasoning seem valid when it is not.
Example:

“Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.”

(Here, “man” shifts from meaning “human beings” to meaning “male.”)

“The business needs more capital. Manila is the capital of the Philippines. Therefore, the business
needs Manila.”

“The company dominates the market. The wet market is crowded. Therefore, the company dominates
crowded places.”

“Students need more time for exams. Time is money. Therefore, students need more money for
exams.”

“Feathers are light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, feathers cannot be dark.”

“The sign said ‘fine for parking here.’ So parking here must be excellent.”

“The company has many assets. Employees are valuable assets. Therefore, employees should be
depreciated.”

Practice Exercises

A. Identify the informal fallacy committed in each statement.

1. “You shouldn’t accept Mia’s argument about study habits—she is always late anyway.”
 2. “If we allow students to redo one quiz, next they will demand to redo all quizzes, and soon grades
will be meaningless.”
3. “I used the new accounting app once and it crashed. Therefore, the app is unreliable.”
4. “Either you support this budget proposal, or you don’t care about students.”
5. “We introduced casual Fridays and then productivity dropped. So casual Fridays caused the
productivity drop.”

B. Choose one item above and rewrite it as a stronger argument by adding relevant evidence, avoiding
exaggeration, and stating any missing assumptions clearly.