‘student handbook

os
ae

INTRODUCTORY
LOGIC
The Fundamentals of Thinking Well

JAMES B. NANCE &

DOUGLAS WILSON >
Introductory Logic
SEU ENaE
In this series:

Introductory Logic ITEM# Intermediate Logic ITEM#

Student Text N-160 Student Text N-162
Teacher Edition N-161 Teacher Edition N-163
Test and Quiz Packet N-164 Test and Quiz Packet N-165
DVD Course DVD-N160 DVD Course DVD-N162

James B. Nance and Douglas Wilson, Introductory Logic: The Fundamentals of Thinking Well, Student
Fifth edition. Copyright ©1990, 1992, 1997, 2006, 2014 by James B. Nance and Douglas Wilson.
First edition 1990. Second edition 1992. Third edition, revised and expanded, 1997. Fourth edition 2006.

Published by Canon Press

P O. Box 8729, Moscow, Idaho 83843
800-488-2034 | [Link]

Cover design by David Dalbey. Cover illustration by Forrest Dickison

Interior design by Laura Storm and Jared Miller. Interior layout by Valerie Anne Bost.
Printed in the United States of America.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture is taken from the New King James Version’. Copyright ©1982 by
Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans-
mitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without
prior permission of the author, except as provided by USA copyright law.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available on [Link].

ISBN-13: 978-1-59128-165-8
ISBN-10: 1-59128-165-2

ID 16 17 as 19 20 21 28-7
6 > Aw)
INTRODUCTORY LOGIC
The Fundamentals of Thinking Well

STUDENTS ME Tre Borie

canonpress
Moscow, Idaho !l!
 A NOTE to the TEACHER for the FIFTH EDITION

ie is the science and art of reasoning well. We reason as we draw conclusions from other
information by means of logical arguments. Arguments are made up of premises and
conclusions, which are types of statements. Statements are sentences that are true or false.
Categorical statements predicate something of a subject, and thus connect subject and predi-
cate terms. A term is the verbal expression of a concept. Consequently, in order to follow logi-
cal arguments as we reason, we must know how to determine the truth of statements, and to
understand statements, we need to be able to define the terms that make up those statements.
In this text we begin with terms. Your students will learn how to define terms and how
to relate terms to other terms in genus and species charts. They will then study statements,
discovering ways to determine the truth of a given statement, and will examine how state-
ments relate to each other. Next, they will learn how to put statements together into argu-
ments, and gather strategies for distinguishing valid arguments from invalid ones. They will
do this first in the tightly controlled, artificial environment of categorical syllogisms. You
will then lead them into the real world as they take the tools they have mastered and learn
how to apply them to arguments in normal English. Once they have gained the skills of
analyzing the arguments of others, they will take a brief foray into constructing arguments
to establish conclusions of their own. They will then finish this course by learning to detect
the fallacies that litter arguments in daily life.
This logic course thus follows the program outlined by Dorothy Sayers in “The Lost Tools
of Learning.” In that seminal essay, she outlined for us the course of study for the medieval
logic student, who learned “how to use language: how to define his terms and make accurate
statements; how to construct an argument and how to detect fallacies in argument.” Terms,
statements, arguments, fallacies—these are concepts that will become familiar to your stu-
dents in this study of Introductory Logic: The Fundamentals of Thinking Well.
James B. Nance
April 2014
bee) Jaa 5 [Link] cs

mal, a apis
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

CONTENTS
NatrodGGtiai 4 sce. oc C0 Cel ee A 1

UNIT ONE:
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Resson -1: Ihe Purposes and ly pes‘or Denniticns «2s

ee eee 9
POREICE Ts co eek ck Ol Tne Oe OT ee ee 13
[iessant-2: Gcrits ANG Species <n. 42.4 ban se eee ee 15
EMEP EU Ls wf 5S an 8 0 WR A a ee 19
Lésson. 3: Extension and Intension14.4 PRESSLEY. 21
ERTIES a seg Geo Uk A gh rr eee 2)
Lesson 4: Methods of Defining -»..5....+...:cce
seit, SRS 27
LECCICISC An hathata 2 ROD Bs A ER Avan ae 31
Lesson 5: Rules for Defining by Genus and Difference................ 33
HESCCPCESE D> ha osu o8ahaha Naka! 0”PatFiaticl Raab atBae seal RA EA RO 3/
Unie l Review Quéstions: SAS 2. 0. SEONG 90 BORPE SAE She, BOE 39
Unite tl Review Exercises+. +1... cine SOS, FP Re ee 4]

UNIT TWO:
STATEMENTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS

eee SEALEINCIS ee ec re ae atte eee ee oe eT ee sys

5 i Sli Gt 6 ae eet Saale Ae eSeal NAAE Sah AE PE i WBN CAEN NRE 8 59
Besson 7 ele Oupporiilig Statements sa. tty oe sage ene es we cee 61
1
S67 eI alhilt peSie as dl,Gai Re aie toerie asDag: EPP SE 6 SyAe 5S EIST 63
Besoe supported Stavemicnhts.< tact. oleate oe ec ones eon 65
| ake LDR PARE, id vg Dye FES 5 Tek: PRR At Vin ietaedeh eet 67
Besson 9: Relationships between Statements.°-.' 0 eae oe 69
Juss
ites Cas aurea [Link] iga Mics 5. lg gal cag ah Pe AR RBA Beg ERaoe 73
|
eprops Consistency and isaOtcement 065 nee eka ee oe ene ri
op OES NN) SI GOS Fl Raa a RPE ae ae Aye Oe a 72
Lesson-11: The One Basie Verb: 4205. 2. Ce ie ee ee 81
Exercise UP. . oo. 0040S Sh i eee 83
Lesson 12: Standard Categorical Statements. ......---++---++-+++++s: 85
Eercise 12... os io <6 0%tape Sie tite ste.4 dos!ala gee 89
Lesson 13: The [Link] Opposition 22... ... .5- ose ee 91
Lesson 14: Contradi€tion™ - eigen ke Ge eh es fo)
Exercise 13... . ORR. FR De ee oe 7
‘Exercise 14 00.6055 Os a , 99
Wesson’ 15: Gontrariety “ie ie ates es ahs iy 2 oe 8 eee eee ee 101
Lesson 16: Subcontratiety¥o): isan. gf. een) 340 os Ae ee 105
Exercise 15 v.53 Geis Ce ela pote sie « Sed ee 107
Lesson, 17: Subimplicatigin (3.24 5 denne’. 2 sus 38 a 109
Lesson 18: Supetimplication ii. ies Guy 6 « ee 111
Bercise 16 «2 ao Be ee ie ee 115
Eegercise 175. 2 eee Oak TON ee 17
Writ 2 Review Questions: 2c. ots 5S. a ae ee ee eee 119
Unit 2° Reviews xercisese = oo. sek so soe vee ee ee iZ3

UNIT THREE:
SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY
ess 19; Arouiments xajiyc50 5, 5incgs ocs.0,s.5:+) 2.2 Qari eekAe 141
PIS MOE A a eb ih dhigsdys adeua! ta 143
besson 2.0. The Syllogismaawhit)- tes eae.) ad Saba) aah ele ome 145
ETE Oe i gs en 5 eo ars a ee ee 149
Hesson 21; The Mood of Syllogisms. ..........s .,.,:..Genjepeens
ae 151
Eesson 22: ‘The Figure of Syllogisms...2.,.........,.,;..> gee oe: 153
BEETCIRE LO) S 5 Tha a sob teCet ee orTecB nd sbMev RG og 155
LRT CISE aN eG Nd EROS a tcc ae gh le Soa. «3eae 157
Lesson: 23+ ‘Trutheand Validpies cm. ein rs «io ee Reed 159
Lesson 24: Testing Syllogisms by Counterexample.................. 163
EON 22 ahaa ike Reb Sst A Phe AEE Oe. chee 167
Messon.25:' Distributed Ferms ix. [Link] say 0. eee 169
ERTIES v5 ctor ume sone eye ae i ee 171
Lesson’ 2G: ‘Testing syllogisms by Rules... . aac. a. «nt Sees Mee 173
NLT oh a: OEE RE ER, See ee ee ne iene. See 179
LOPS CDS o's a Foe Bo He GE tc AN aad 0a ere 183
Minit 3 Review Question sca 6 cpp ee ciel a ack a 185
Minit 3 Keview Exercises, otis. Sscuc rece oe en a cen ek ee ene 187
 UNIT FOUR:
ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH
Lesson 27: Immediatedinferences-.4 .&.mwes..8
OPE eer. ...-- 0. ee ces 197
Decree DOR 2. % 0. Wee. RD eB ee wk tees 201
ENCh
a St? Li ee Rly, ie cts Pe tee = DES Oh Shs 203
Lessonr282lTanslating Ordinary Statements Gea...
40 5. es ke 205
| cigkr aes LOE ee Aad Bar We any Oa ie Re rea 209
Lesson 29: Translating Inclusive and Exclusive Statements............ 211
RABE ZOD, AML SOLE GS SAREE AL BTW RES acs 215
Evencise 30a sche. Led. (i 1 tS eee. Bet re. ss of 2%
Lesson. 30: Enthy micines sy.-ses otacepetieriecadee
. SN Eta Bae ake eat 219
ag hie Ee Peet Sie Me ee a 225
OPTITSE DES ota ain Oe ee OO ee 22D
isessorl 51; rlypotictical Syllopisms ..’.... 0.5. o1 eee ee ee 227
ENEP ERED SIN OS RE OE a RE Pe HS:
TEE OBER. ie CES ROAVET SU SBOE SCE BS eo 235
Leon 32:Establishing Conclusions -¢ and sa ane Gera eee ss 237
TERETE Ce5 oe pac ncth y car Ol ene Rawr ice Lee 241
Wnts Review Questions... joa. sk on a ee Cn ee 243
Wane Rewew Exercises. 2.2 | 5. vs eo ee 245

UNIT FIVE:
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Lesson’ 33: Fallaciesvol-Distractionvuem. ore ones .Greaisires
(HE. oes 27.
PELEECIP IS wnat. Duasanie gig, Nicaties)<tps: fismeatn . A oe 263
Lesson 34: Fallacies ob Ambiguity... 2.06. a6 oss bance Bee dees 265
FETS EL. ie eck agave Gk da tohwhainla,ie ae eT 269
Lesson Oo: Fallacies:Of FOL: « .. «255.00 dg oe eee eee DH |
J 08a A og | pce le ee Ds Plan,se ab nk ie rain the Pacer aheri oho. |: 21D
Wesson F6:Detecting FallaciesRanic. ey. . >a At AOA. Se... 27]
Feercise:- 39. (oc. ty ae. i We i De ANE Debit es eet. ee 279
ait PRCHIEW-CIUCSHONS 0.4 ek PE tcssstaies cparaiee ais eren teres = «caer 281
Wines Review Exercises wire. sd ogi oie os ae ae eee 283

APPENDICES

Appcndrm A> TheS@uare of Opposition [P1205

OF Ta. ye a. 291
Appendie B: the [Link] ot Syllogismsis:. 1.0%. MONS eoees,. 2. + «. 23),
 os

athe PE sole

; , 9 Tae
m. *y

—_, % '

ne
a

‘ vd -
 INTRODUCTION

LOGIC: ITS NATURE

AND PURPOSE
( .od created man with the ability to reason: “Come now, and let us
reason together, saith the Lord” (Is. 1:18). [Link]
[Link] with Jsdimeand with one another. This enables us
to love and obey Him. Reasoningsmeans;drawingyproperconclusions? KEY POINT
Reason opens our minds
so that they can close upon
getsalt allows us, for example, to take universal statements such as “God truth. Reason is a gift from
God; it is not the single,
has commanded all men everywhere to repent” and to apply them, first
essential aspect of bearing
to ourselves and then to our neighbor: “We are men, therefore we must God’s image.
repent.” Without the ability to reason, we would be unable to discuss,
‘preach, read, hear the gospel, or follow God’s commands. In other
words, proper reasoning opens the mind so that it can close upon truth.
Some have assumed that this ability to reason is what consti-
tutes man being created in the image of God. But there are several
problems with this assumption. First, there are other creatures (like
angels and cherubim) who have an ability to reason, but who do
not bear the image of God the same way that man does. Another
problem is that it implies that humans who are very young (e.g., a
fertilized human ovum) or who are severely retarded cannot bear
God’s image, or that they do so imperfectly. Rather than treating
reason as the image of God in man, it would be far better to treat
reason as a gift that God gives (out of His own nature and charac-
ter) to all intelligent creatures. The more He gives, the greater our
responsibility to love Him, as Scripture says, “with all our minds.”
Formal logic is the science and art of reasoning well. As a science,
logic includes discovering and identifying the patterns or rules by
which we reason. As an art, logic teaches how to follow those rules,
without abusing them in a wooden (and unreasonable) way. About
sixteen centuries ago, Augustine said this about the science of logic:
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing

devised by men, but is observed and noted by them
that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it ex-
ists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin
with God. For as the man who narrates the order of
events does not himself create that order; and as he
who describes the situations of places, or the natures
of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe ar-
rangements of man; and as he who points out the stars
and their movements does not point out anything that
he himself or any other man has ordained; in the same
way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the
antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true;
but he does not himself make it so, he only points out
that it is so. (On Christian Doctrine, book II, chapter 32)

Logic is not devised by man, but neither is it created by God, like

maple trees and dwarf stars are. Rather, it is an “attribute” of God
which is reflected in creation. We need to be careful here, because it
KEY POINT
is not an attribute of God that is stated directly in Scripture, as His
Logic is not created by holiness, love, and righteousness are. But it is a characteristic of God
God or man; rather, it is
that we see assumed everywhere in Scripture. We do not believe that
an attribute of God. It is
not over God or indepen-
logic is independent of God and over Him, which would mean that
dent of Him. the triune God is not the sovereign God of the Bible. But neither do
we believe that God could have created a nonsensical world where
He was both the creator of it and not the creator of it. This leaves
us with the assumption that all things are ultimately defined by
God Himself, rather than by “rules.” Since we want to learn how to
reason as faithful Christians, we begin by assuming that all faithful
thinking and reasoning is somehow sharing in this characteristic of
God. So when we study logic faithfully, we are studying some of the
divine reflection in the world around us.

The Laws of Thought

Keeping all of this in mind, we must be careful when dealing with
“rules” and “laws” of logic. In order to reason well, we have to assume
 LOGIC: ITS NATURE AND PURPOSE

certain very basic things that never show up as particular items in

our argument. They are simply (and quietly) assumed. For example,
if you were putting together an argument about light bulbs or tri-
cycles, it is very important that they not turn into something else
(like toaster ovens or catcher’s mitts) halfway through the argument.
If they did, the argument would just have to lie down in the corner
and sob quietly. It could never get anything done.
Traditionally, these assumptions have been called the “laws of
thought.” There is nothing wrong with the contents of these assump-
tions, but there is a significant problem with another deeper assump-
tion lying beneath them. That assumption is that you can have laws
without a lawgiver, and that ultimately, you can have reason apart
from the triune God of Scripture. All you need to do, it is thought,
is postulate some laws of thought and off you go.
Because this is the case, we want to begin by showing how the laws
of thought are actually grounded in the nature of the triune God,
revealed in Jesus Christ. After we have done that, we will be able
to discuss the traditional terminology. The reason for doing this is
that many modernists have been guilty of thinking that impersonal
“laws” have authority in themselves, which of course they do not.
Let’s start with the basic Christian confession that Jesus is Lord.
When God reveals Himself in Christ, the decision that must be
made is whether to believe it or not. These are the only two options:
faith or unbelief. This means that the statement Jesus is Lord must
either be true or false. A faithful person confesses that it is true. An
unfaithful person denies it as false. God does not leave open the op-
tion of saying something like, “I believe that the higher reality of the
lordship of Christ cannot be contained in our paltry categories of
true and false, and so I cannot say whether I believe in Him or not.”
Such a response is simple dishonesty masquerading as humility.
The fact that any statement is either true or false is one of the three
traditional laws of thought, upon which much of the science of logic
is based. This law of thought is called the BawofExcludedsMiddley
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

As Christians we confess that God is triune. If asked, we would

say, “Yes, that is true. God is triune.” Now if it is true that God is
triune, then it must be true that God is triune. This is an application
of eS. ;
truesthensitisstrues For ordinary people in ordinary conversation,
such rules are not thought to be necessary. But when people are
fleeing from God, they will often take refuge in any folly, argu-
ing that the truth of a statement can change in the middle of an
argument. This law may be employed to answer the unbeliever who
says, “Christianity may be true for you, but not for me.” No. If the
Christian faith is true, then it is true.
The third law says that a statement cannot be both true and false.
This is called the Bawtof/Noncontradiction®> Withourthis lawsewe
h6ld®We could try to assert, for example, that “Jesus is Lord.” But
our opponents could respond, “Oh, I agree that what you say is true.
But it is also false.” We see that if we deny these laws, we lose the
possibility of all rational discourse.
Think for a moment what would happen to our faith if we were
to allow someone to deny these fundamental assumptions. If we
confess “God in three Persons, blessed Trinity,” someone who denied
the Law of Excluded Middle could say that this wonderful confes-
sion is not true, and it is not false. It is just wonderful, and perhaps
even a little inspiring. One who denied the law of identity could say,
“Yes, it is true that God is a Father for you, but it is my truth that
She is a Mother.” And one who denied the Law of Noncontradiction
could say that God is our Father, and also, in the same way and in
the same respect, He is not our Father. In other words, denial of
these bedrock assumptions would make a hash out of the simplest
Christian confession like the Apostles’ Creed.
Having said all this, there is an important warning. The Bible does
assume that the Father is the Father, and not the Son. The Spirit is the
Spirit and not the Father. The Father is not “not the Father.” At the
same time, the Bible a/so teaches that the Father perfectly indwells the
Son, the Son indwells the Father, and both with the Spirit are one God.
Statements about the Father are not independent from statements about
 LOGIC: ITS NATURE AND PURPOSE

the Son. Jesus said, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”
These truths do not deny the laws of thought but rather support them.
Through a wooden application of these laws, some logicians have KEY POINT
gotten to the point where they cannot understand or appreciate po-
etry, metaphor, sacraments, or marriage. The world is full of “in- Logic must always give
way to mystery. For exam-
dwelling” and mutual partaking, because this is a/so what our God ple, we understand many
is like. In our study of logic, we must always leave room for mystery. things in terms of poetry,
We know that the Father is Father, and no one else. We know as _ or sacraments, or the in-
well that the Father is not the Son. But we should also know that 4 welling of the Trinity.
the Father reveals Himself perfectly in the Son.

The Scope of This Book

The subject of logic may be divided into
i two main branches: formal’

Whereas fdneron desis at areaimenG that are strong or weak, emerirIante

deduction deals with arguments that are valid or invalid. If valid, the aadwenonisreasoningwith?
conclusion follows from the premises, and it does so with certainty. —qprebabiliyfromlexamiples?
A valid conclusion is one that is contained within the premises: if LS meres
the premises of a valid argument are true, then the conclusion must '
be true. There are many branches of deductive reasoning. Two main
branches are categorical logic and propositional logic. Toithebest
‘of our knowledge, categorical logic was first developed as ascience by
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Categorical logic
deals with the syllogism, which is a type of deductive argument in
which the conclusion connects one category (or term) with another,
hence the name categorical logic. Propositional logic connects entire
propositions together in arguments.
These branches of logic can be arranged as seen in the chart below:

logic|
informal logic _formal logic

terms statements informal ‘deduction ‘induction

fallacies p
al,
-
_categorica | propositional—

This book is an introduction to the informal and categorical

branches of logic. The next book in this series, Intermediate Logic,
deals with the propositional branch of deduction. The point of all of
this is to encourage students to begin the process of carefully “think-
ing God’s thoughts after Him.” The point of this book is zot to teach
us how to be quarrelsome with one another, nor to bring students to
the false idea that the world is governed by some impersonal deity
named Rules of Inference.
 CEM 4

TERMS
AND DEFINITIONS
Contents

Lesson 1: The Purposes and Types of Definitions

Exercise I
Lesson 2: Genus and Species
Exercise 2

Exercise 3
Lesson 4: Methods of Defining
Exercise 4
Lesson 5: Rules for Defining by Genus and Difference
Exercise 5
Unit 1 Review Questions
Unit 1 Review Exercises
¥
i
4
a.
 LESSON“

THE PURPOSES AND

TYPES OF DEFINITIONS

os acinar rRwEek must

continually define their terms, and may use precise, technical lan-
guage to do so. The same is true for teachers, scientists, philosophers,
theologians, and most other professionals. To demonstrate the value
of this skill, let us consider some of the purposes that definitions serve.
“Note thedifference between
1. Definshow
itionrelationship
ss. When a term is defined properly,
remand
chatter has'with other terms. For example, if you were to define
man as “a rational animal,” your definition implies both that man
(<9 ° ° » ee ° .

has some relationship to other rational beings, such as angels and

demons, and to other animals—bears, whales, and lizards. Or if
bald is defined as “having no hair,” its contradictory relationship
with the term hairy is immediately apparent.

SD a A Commonly, ina discussion

or a debate, ambiguous words are used without the participants
being aware of the ambiguity. The result is a verbal disagree-
ment that may be cleared up by defining terms. For instance,
some people believe that Jesus’ command to love your enemies
is an absurd requirement because they are defining /ove to mean _@Y6i#wanttovarguesabout
“believe the other to be a nice person,” when in fact they know gsubstancesnot words:
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

their enemies to be quite wicked and depraved. But biblically, love

means ‘to treat the other person lawfully from the heart, which
is to be our behavior toward all men. If this definition is made
clear, the people may still think that the command is impossible,
but at least they no longer should see it as absurd.

This is a common problem

in descriptive terms, such as old, dark, tall, mature. If a father tells
his children it must be warm outside before they can swim in the
lake, the children often immediately want vagueness reduced: “How
warm?” If the father responds, “At least eighty degrees Fahrenheit,”
the issue is made clear. Or if you are asked to give a small donation
for a gift for the secretary, you may want a definition to reduce the
vagueness of the term small, like, “By small I mean five dollars.” This
@qeefacinan isingclofinisinenl es le
Note that precising
definitions would not be found in a dictionary; they apply only to
the situation in which they are used.

One of the most important elements

of education is learning the meaning of unfamiliar terms. An in-
crease in vocabulary means an increase in knowledge, which is why
in English class students are taught “vocabulary words” and their def
. initions. In this very lesson you may have learned the definitions of
terms like ambiguity and vagueness. Knowing these definitions helps
us to make subtle distinctions and otherwise use language properly.
When a new word isinvented, or anexisting word isapplied in
(anew
itisig way, ivenrastipulative définiitiom, Such definitions, if
widely accepted, increase the vocabulary of the language to which
_ they are added. New words are continually adopted into English,
such as words resulting from new inventions (laptop, added in

10
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

1985), from sports (screwball, 1928), from other languages (macho

from Spanish, also 1928), or coined out of someone’s imagination
(boondoggle, from an American scoutmaster, 1957).

5. Definitions canexplain concepts theoretically. Sometimes definitions _

are given for terms, not because the word itself isunfamiliar, but be-
. For
example, when your chemistry teacher defines water by its chemi-
cal formula H,O, he is not trying to increase your vocabulary (you
already knew the term water), but to explain its atomic structure.
Accepting a theoretical definition is like accepting a theory
abourchemermybeingrdefined. If you define spirit as “the life-
giving principle of physical organisms,” you are inviting others to
accept the idea that life is somehow a spiritual product.

6. "Definitionsicaniin
fluence attitudesy Often terms are defined, not
necessarily for the purpose of clarifying their meaning, but in order
to influence the attitudes and emotions of an audience. Abortion
has been defined as “the slaughter of innocent children” on the
one hand, “the right of a woman to control her own body” on the
other, or even the non-emotional “termination of a pregnancy.” Allh
AGINE ne. Ene One

» (<4

#3 Is marriage “the institutionalized slavery

of women by men” or “the blessed union of man and wife”? You
can see the capacity of persuasive definitions for good or ill.

Definitions give meanings for terms. Definitions can show relation-

ships between terms, remove ambiguity, reduce vagueness, increase
vocabulary, explain concepts theoretically, and influence attitudes.
Along with these purposes are the five types of definitions: lexical,
precising, stipulative, theoretical, and persuasive.

1]
Pee sear
it aea”
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

EXERCISE 1 (16 points)

ii Write lexical definitions of the words child and adult that show the relationship be-
tween them.

Cdutt, Grown Ups,

. The word grace is an ambiguous word. Write two lexical definitions for the word grace,
giving two of its different meanings.

A-title of un _archhish.
A short ptayer of than kc for a Mee L

Write a precising definition of the word soon to clarify the vagueness in the sentence
“T will be home soon.”

Lowi be home tn 10 minuets.

Invent a stipulative definition for the word ploff-

A soft or Fluffy object:

Write a persuasive definition of the word television from the point of view of a mother
who thinks her children watch too much of it.
Saurce Of med'a.

Write a short, imaginary dialogue between two people having a verbal dispute about
the word believe. Then introduce a third person who settles the dispute by presenting
lexical definitions for the word that eliminate the ambiguity. (Continue on the back
if needed.)

13
 sae

ome Ww eaobriaark |

Hath kere
7 -

F ares ae ‘

F ' oe
Ave ‘
im Laas i
i ie ro
’. . yA f
res #) ‘

“a

a
f
 PEON 2

GENUS
AND SPECIES

; ‘erms are often defined by being placed among a higher category,

or genus. The genus ofaterm ismore general, broad, orabstract:
a 5 ee NN BSS aE 2
; Va
oe eleee
Tit
D 3

Whichwissastypoyekindssorexamplesoftheserm The species is more

specific, narrow, or concrete than the genus. Terms can be placed ina
[Link]:hierarchy, thus clearly showing the relationships
between them. For example, consider the hierarchy below:

cies that could be placed under it. The chart also shows that the term
grains is the genus of wheat, barley, and rye. Of course, many other
terms could be included as species of grains. Can you think of any?
The words genus and species are relative terms. Each term can be
both a genus and a species—a genus of the terms below it, and a
species of the term above it. Thus grains is both a species of food and
a genus of wheat. This process can continue (although not indefi-
nitely) both downward and upward. Cheese could be the genus for tive terms. Each term can‘be ~
different varieties of cheese, such as Swiss, Parmesan, and Cheddar. both agenus and aspecies.
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

One caution: do not confuse the genus and species hierarchies of

logic with the similar hierarchy you may have learned in biology. In
logic, there are no levels other than genus and species—no family,
order, class, phylum, or kingdom.
Now look at the genus and species hierarchy for the term J/ogic.

Two types of logic are identified as species: informal and formal.

These species are amtituallygexclusive+—they do not overlap. No
branch of logic is both formal and informal. They are also éxhaus-
““tive=—no other types of logic exist. Theoretically, every genus can be
divided into species that are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
And while the species must be mutually exclusive, in practice they
are rarely exhaustive. Are induction and deduction an exhaustive list
of the types of formal logic?

The dividing principle there is, “How directly related to reasoning is

the term?” Logic that deals directly with reasoning is formal, while
logic that is more indirectly related to reasoning is informal. Other
dividing principles could have been used which would result in a
different chart, such as “What is the product or goal of the term?”
In one case, for logic, the goal might be to discover and classify the
rules of reasoning. In this case we would be considering the science
of logic. In another case, the goal might be to produce persuasive
arguments, which would mean we are considering the art of logic.
Thus the chart would be:

“WeRic®
oa CS coe a sais

16
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

wallyrexclusivé. Such an error exists in this chart:

If the process of finding a
further genus for any genus
cannot continue indefi-
nitely, it is reasonable to ask,
Women. Lawyers» What is the highest possible
genus? If the genus of food
This is an error because the species overlap: some women are law- is material, what is the ge-
yers. nus of material? Possibilities
TE division by gender and division by profession. include matter, substance,
being, and so on. All of
A similar error would occur when a term appears at the wrong
these are things created.
level in the chart, such as in this example: But anything not created
is God, since God alone is
Logic uncreated. Thus we are led
to what theologians call the
Pormallegie Induction: “Creator/creature distinc-
tion”: all things are either
Here the species overlap because induction itself is a species of Creator, or something creat-
formal logic, and thus should appear beneath it. ed by the Creator. These are
Another error can occur if a chart is being produced for an am- the highest genera of things.
More could be said about
biguous word, with two different definitions in mind for the same
the highest genus of ab-
word. This word could be taken stractions (like /ogic), verbs
in two senses: as a round toy, or as a kind of formal dance. This (like to run), and so on.
ambiguity could result in the following faulty chart:

Ball |
=

Finally, remember that a species is not a part of the genus, but rather
a type or kind of that genus. Ghespecies*ofethergenuswicycleumay,
includernowntaindikesbarnoehandlebarsaSo when asked to make a
genus and species chart, do not make a “whole to parts” chart like this:

Bicycle©
“Frame
© Pedals ~

17
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

SUMMARY

18
 UNIT ONEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Exercise 2 (20 points)

Explain the error or problem with each genus and species hierarchy shown.

1, animals 2. hand

mammals fish — air-breathers fingers thumb palm

a glasses 4, airplane

sunglasses wine glasses jet biplane Boeing airplane

Fill in the genus and species hierarchy for each term given, identifying a) a genus for the
term, b) another species under that genus, and c) a species of the term.

oy es (c)

7. Draw a genus and species hierarchy that includes the following terms: ALGEBRA, BIOL-
OGY, CHEMISTRY, GEOMETRY, MATH, PHYSICS, SCIENCE, SUBJECT

—————___,

SS. a a a

19
 dl 4,
PAGS | ~
7
—_— "
Aloe
* : *
ng

“a i

us <7
 LESSON 3

EXTENSION
AND INTENSION
wo concepts closely associated with genus and species charts are

ti
extension and intension. The extension of a term is the sum of
all the individual objects to which the term applies. Thus the exten-
sion of the term book is the set of all books—all novels, dictionaries,
textbooks, manuals, etc. The extension of the term helmet would
include every football helmet, bicycle helmet, space-suit helmet, and
any other helmet imaginable.
All the objects included in the extension of a term have certain
attributes in common. If they did not, we could not identify them
with one term. The sum of the common attributes of a term is the

i
intension of the term. Thus the intension of book would include
attributes such as: having pages, on which words are written, which
are bound together by some means. ‘The intension of helmet would
include these attributes: fitting on the head, resisting impact, made
of protective material, and so on.
Extension and intension are inversely related. Given almost any
genus and species chart, as you work your way up the chart, the
extension of each term is greater than the previous terms, but the
intension is smaller. Consider the hierarchy shown below:
Extension and intension
device are inversely related.

timepiece
INCREASING 4 | INCREASING
EXTENSION mee INTENSION
cloc

digital clock

The term clock has a greater extension than the term digital clock—
that is, there are more clocks than there are digital clocks, because

21
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

clock not only includes all digital clocks, but all other types of clocks
as well. Similarly, there are more timepieces than there are clocks
(can you name some?), so the extension of timepiece is greater than
the extension of clock. As you go up a hierarchy, extension increases.
However, intension decreases as you go up the chart, and increases
It is possible to increase in-
tension without simultane-
as you go down. Timepieces have more attributes in common (i.e., a
ously decreasing extension. greater intension) than devices, clocks have more attributes in com-
For example, if we added mon than timepieces, and so on.
the attribute material to Increasing extension is parallel to increasing abstraction. The more
digital clock, we have in- abstract a term is, the greater its extent. Device is more abstract than
creased intension, but the
timepiece. To think is more abstract than to reason, and thus would
extension has remained the
be higher on the genus and species chart, having a greater extension
same, since all digital clocks
are material digital clocks. (though applying extension and intension to verbs tends to be more
Similarly, since all digital difficult than applying them to nouns).
clocks are less than one mile Similarly, an increase in intension is accompanied by an increase
in height, adding this attri- in concreteness. The more attributes a term has, the more concrete it
bute would not change the
is. Digital clock is more concrete than clock, which is more concrete
extension. Is it possible to
change extension without
than timepiece.
changing intension? The ability to list terms in order of increasing (or decreasing) ex-
tension (or intension) is a great help in understanding the relation-
ships among them. Here we have in alphabetical order a number of
terms from a genus and species hierarchy:

ANIMAL, APE, GORILLA, LIVING BEING, MAMMAL

Greater extension means

Arranged in order of increasing extension (and decreasing inten-
more abstraction; greater
sion), this list would look like this:
intension means more
concreteness. GORILLA, APE, MAMMAL, ANIMAL, LIVING BEING

Understanding extension
Rearranged in order of increasing intension (that is, decreasing
and intension will help you
grasp various relationships
extension), the list would simply be placed in reverse order:
among terms.
LIVING BEING, ANIMAL, MAMMAL, APE, GORILLA

pa
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

SUMMARY
The extension of a term is the sum of all the individual things to
which a term applies. The intension of a term is the sum of the com-
mon attributes of the term. Extension and intension are inversely
related; as extension increases, intension decreases, and vice versa.

Zo
amt
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Exercise 3 (15 points)

1. Arrange in order of increasing extension:
FIGURE, PLANE FIGURE, POLYGON, RECTANGLE, SQUARE

2. Arrange in order of decreasing extension:

INSTRUMENT, SCIMITAR, CURVED SWORD, SWORD, WEAPON

3. Arrange in order of increasing intension:

ANCIENT LANGUAGE, CLASSICAL LATIN, COMMUNICATION, LANGUAGE, LATIN
‘ ¥ j - t z ’ wef. °
th} Z
eat,
in onole at si
class <c f"
(C& e
pr,} g f r s we
fa eee+
le *
£7 * > -”
a #3y, ff .
fie Pa
Pe So es
CLA ceV'
‘evi

é} # a ri

4. Arrange in order of decreasing intension:

BAPTIST, CHRISTIAN, PROTESTANT, RELIGIOUS PERSON, SOUTHERN BAPTIST

P Gp? Al. oul | f,apt T Te Stan Chr ‘st; el,

5. Determine the attribute or characteristic that distinguishes the term from the genus
given in parentheses after the term.

CLocK (TmeprEcE) Clocks _/

DIGITAL CLOCK (CLOCK) L FD dwe plan

25
eo rege
 kESSONE4

METHODS
OF DEFINING
here are many methods of defining (giving a meaning of) a
term. One of these methods, defining by genus and difference,
directly relates to the genus and species hierarchies of the last two
sections. Before we examine that method, however, we will consider
two others that are commonly used.

1.
Defining
by synonym. When you look in the dictionary for the:

For example,
look up progeny and you will probably find that it is a synonym of
descendants ot children. This is helpful, since you know what these
words mean. However, it may not help you to find out that vicis-
situde means mutability. We all learned the meanings of words by hog we
cnr ni
this method when we were young. “Daddy, what's essential mean?”
“Son, essential means necessary or important.”
One limitation of defining by synonym is that many words do not
have exact synonyms (indeed, some would argue that no two words
mean exactly the same thing). For example, the word oxygen has no
real synonym, and is best defined by some other method. The same
could be said for the terms bone, breakfast, and triangle.

A
child, upon asking her mother what money is, may be given a penny
or shown a dollar bill. My children all learned the meaning of the ‘He"6pposite*use"oPimage,
word cow by having cows pointed out to them as we were driving by
a field. “Jamie, look at all the cows!” serte=pre purimunisanis-
_
causational:
tional, and

27
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

the term.
ikrypton*xenonyeandtradom. This would be a complete definition.
Often, representative samples can give partial (though adequate)
definitions. Defining sickness by giving chicken pox and the flu as
examples will probably meet the need. In general, when defining by
example, be sure to include several differing terms.
This method also has some limitations. When a child is shown a
typewriter and calls it a computer, he demonstrates the ambiguity of
this method. When shown a computer, the child is uncertain as to
what part is the meaning of the word computer—the keyboard, the
screen, or something else. Despite this and similar problems, giving
examples is a common means of defining.

or
example, the term backpack may be defined as “a bag carried on the
back.” The genus is bag, the difference is carried on the back. The
term /ogic has been defined as “the science of reasoning.” The genus
is science, the difference is ofreasoning. This difference distinguishes
logic from other sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics.
To choose a genus, try to determine what kind of thing the term
is. What kind of thing is a computer? Is it a tool? A machine? A box?
Also, remember that you are not defining words per se, which are
often ambiguous, but you are defining terms, the concepts behind
words. When defining church, for example, you need to determine
if you are considering the body of believers or the building where
they meet before you develop a definition. When asked to define a
term, only one definition is necessary.
When choosing the difference, remember that you are trying to
distinguish the term from every other species under the genus. The
difference should exclude species that the term does not include, and

28
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

vice versa. Consider this definition ofbattle: “ahostile encounter.

between two armies.” ‘The difference “between two armies” excludes.
battles between ships at sea, among other things, and is thus too
marrow, Also note that the difference should be an essential one. A
painting is not “a picture drawn on canvas,” but “a picture drawn
by means of paint.”
The difference need not come after the genus. “Three-sided poly-
gon” is a good definition of triangle by method of genus and differ-
ence, even though the difference (three-sided) is given first.
You can see that this method of defining is particularly appropri-
ate when the purpose is to show relationships between terms. The
examples given in that section were examples of defining by genus
and difference.
SUMMARY

29
 aL ©

t alla
tie to gene
, om
W “a
‘ i

a
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Exercise 4 (24 points)

Define the following terms by listing three examples of each.

1. nation : 2. board game 3. candy

{° f- i iF, if” 4 ed
f £. Wa | { sn ¢

Define these terms by identifying a synonym of each.

{ }

4. happy ou |
{

5. job
6. dinner

Define the following words by genus and difference.

g ¢

7. brother
8. doe
9. whisker G, CA
10. queen 'y
11. quiz
12. idol

|
 ERSSONuS

RULES FOR DEFINING BY

GENUS AND DIFFERENCE
p to this point, we have considered several methods of defin-
ing, and you have had some practice defining words by genus
and difference. In order to use this method well, we need to keep a
few rules in mind.

1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the term.

For any given term, some attributes are essential, while others can
be considered merely accidental or superficial. Bssentiakmeans,nec>
ie , id ec
eel on «ce RSNRNREED

vovenmBut the fact that ovens are usually shaped like a box is merely
accidental (it is possible to have a round oven), and thus this attribute
should not be part of the definition of the term.
How can you tell the difference between essential and acciden-
tal attributes? First ask, “Would this term cease to be what it is if
this attribute were somehow changed or removed?” If changing the
attribute would destroy the meaning of the term, that attribute is
essential. Secondly, essential attributes tend to be the cause of ac-
cidental attributes. Consider the term shin. Which attribute is es-
sential: “located on the front of the leg below the knee,” or “often
injured in soccer games”? The former is the essential attribute, since
it is one cause of the latter.
Also, note that this rule implies that a definition should avoid
redundancy. For example, consider this definition of a triangle: “A
polygon with three straight sides and three angles.” This definition
is redundant in two places: all polygons have straight sides, and any
polygon with three sides necessarily has three angles. A better defini-
tion for triangle is simply “A polygon with three sides.”

33
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2. Adefinition should not be circular. The word being defined should...

If a student defines /ogic

as “the study of logic,” he hasn’t really given the meaning at all.
This rule is not necessarily broken when part of a word is used
in its definition. The definition of polar bear as “a white bear that
inhabits the arctic regions” is not circular, even though the word
“bear” appears in both parts.
This rule generally excludes the use of synonyms. If synonyms are al-
lowed, then define the word by synonym, not by genus and difference.

p 30AMAEfinition should "Hot»be too, broad»nor:too:narrow. This’

THINKING DEEPER exclude,
ulesiseviolavedowhenvardefinitionsincludesswhatitshould
We must be careful not to omexeludés*whatut:shouldsincludé. Consider this definition for the
think that once we have term table: “a piece of furniture consisting of a flat slab of wood fixed
produced a proper genus
and difference definition
on legs.” The problem is that this definition excludes tables made of
we have somehow gotten to metal or other material. Its extension is too small. A definition for
the essence of the thing de- table that includes too much is “a piece of furniture with legs.” This
fined. This analytic method — would include chairs, couches, and other things which are not tables.
has value in making our To check if the extensions of a term and its definition are equiva-
eee aod wenn ‘lent, look tor counterexamples. Is a baby a newborn person? What
but a more synthetic or
Se a TM about a six-month-old baby? Is logic the science of thinking, or are
conti ee ee some types of thinking outside the scope of logic?
seeking to fully learn what
something is. For example, 4 n sho ive. Definitions
an analytic definition of can be unclear for avariety ofreasons. Adefinition may be unclear
the Word of God might be wl . a ambiguous eT
“God’s powerful, meaning- —
Bdeabaer cath bs definewayas“alighebeamy~yourdefinition
1sambiguous. Light has
how does the Bible describe Several meanings, and so does beam. However, simply rearranging
the Word of God? Consider _the words in the definition to be “a beam of light” helps to clarify
Psalm 19: “The law of the these ambiguities. Defining year as “a long period of time” breaks
Lord is perfect, converting this rule, because the definition is vague. Defining man as “a ratio-
the soul: the testimony of cinative hominid” breaks this rule because both “ratiocinative” and
the Lord is sure, making
wise the simple....More to “hominid” are too obscure for most people.
he desired are they than Definitions also may be unclear when the language of the defini-
gold, yea, than much fine tion is figurative or metaphorical. “Ray: a drop of golden sun” is a
gold: sweeter also than
honey and the honeycomb.”

34
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

figurative definition. Such definitions may be poetic, but they often

do not provide a clear meaning for the term.

Some terms are necessarily negative, such as bald, empty, and pen-
niless. The definitions of these would be awkward if written positive-
ly, and thus they may be negative without really breaking the rule.

andsovony This rule is broken, for example, when to run is defined

as “faster than walking.” The term is a verb, the given definition is
not. Defining to sew as “a needle pulling thread” breaks this rule as
well—to sew is a verb, “a needle pulling thread” is a noun.
A similar error occurs in this definition of to run: “when you go
faster than walking.” Is to run a time? Of course not, so don’t use
the word when. Similar problems often crop up when the words
who, what, where, why and how appear in definitions. These are best
avoided, if possible.

SUMMARY

When terms are defined by genus and difference, certain rules should
be followed. A definition should 1) state the essential attributes of *
the term, 2) not be circular, 3) not be too broad or too narrow, 4)
not be unclear or figurative, 5) positively
be stated if possible, and _
6) be of the same part of speech as the term.

Oo
 ‘ai

Sa gn Ge ON

Wii. sia Se GaP

ARNON eye 0

’ >
ie a

i n
Pex

wid
v
vehi

ae ae

ae

,% .

‘i
$ a

oF
,

‘ i
~ 7 ~

>" 1

,
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Exercise 5 (54 points)

Identify the rule(s) broken by circling the correct number(s). Use the numbers in the
following list: A definition should (1) State the essential attributes of the term, (2) Not be
circular, (3) Not be too broad or too narrow, (4) Not be unclear or figurative, (5) Be stated
positively ifpossible, and (6) Be of the same part ofspeech as the term.

DEFINITION RULE #5 BROKEN

1. Mountain: A natural object bigger than a hill. le? 6) 456
2. Wife: Adam’s rib. Ci).2.3 @5 6
3. Brick: Dried clay shaped into a brick. 1023456
4. Rectangle: The shape of a typical textbook. {y Li. SAD A0
5. Headache: When your head hurts. 12@45@
6. Capitalist: A person who is not a socialist. Y2Q4 6) 6
7. To hate: How you feel when you don’t like something. (1) 2 @) 4.5 ©
8. Carpet: Floor covering. 120456
9. To float: To hover. 20456
10. Bag: A pliant repository. 123 45 6
11. Large: Something that is not small. 1234 6)@
12. Life: A roller coaster that we all ride. (12 3 (95 6

Fill in the genus and species hierarchy for each term given, identifying a) a genus for ae
term, b) another species under that genus, and c) a species of the term.

3. @ Peo}. 4 @Sabeihte
J (b)
ftps
Jovi %

A dinner S
ue
j
5 ¢
4 f

(c) f¢ AS. ‘Z

37
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

to teach to pray
al 7
(c) fo L( To (c) te Prd, tz

Define the following terms by genus and difference, using the same genus from any cor-
responding terms in the charts above. Be careful not break any of the rules!
19.dinner_

38
 UNIT 1 REVIEW

REVIEW QUESTIONS
Answers can be found in the lesson under which the questions are listed.

Introduction
What is reasoning?
. Why has God given men the ability to reason?
What is formal logic? In what way is logic an “attribute” of God?
. What is the Law of Excluded Middle?
What is the Law of Identity?
. What is the Law of Non-contradiction?
How does formal logic differ from informal logic?
CONAN
=|
KWN
. What are some of the topics dea!t with under informal logic?
2: What are the two branches of formal logic?
10. What are some differences between induction and deduction?
11. What are two branches of deduction?
[Link] first developed categorical logic, and when did he live?
13. What is one difference between categorical logic and propositional logic?
14. What are the branches of logic dealt with in this book?

Lesson 1: The Purposes and Types of Definitions,

. What is a term?
. What is the connection between a term and a wora?
What does it mean to define a term?
What are six purposes for defining terms?
What are the five types of definitions?
. Which types would you likely find in a dictionary?
What is an ambiguous word?
SPNANKRON
. What is a vague word?
Ds: What is a lexical definition?
10. What is a precising definition?
11. What is a stipulative definition?

39
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

12. What is a theoretical definition?

13. What is a persuasive definition?

Lesson 2: Genus and Species

1. What is a genus?
2. What is a species?
3. Cana term be both the genus of one term and the species of another?
4, What are some of the common errors made in constructing genus and species charts?

Lesson 3: Extension and Intension

1. What is the extension of a term?
2. What is the intension of a term?
3. How are extension and intension related in any given genus and species chart?

Lesson 4: Methods of Defining

What are three methods of defining terms?
Do other methods exist?
What are some limitations of defining by synonym?
What are some rules for defining by example?
WN How is a
WR term defined by genus and difference?

Lesson 5: Rules for Defining by Genus and Difference

1. What are the six rules for defining by genus and difference?
2. Can you restate these rules in your own words?
3. What is the difference between an essential and an accidental attribute?
4, What are three ways that a definition can be unclear?

40
 A Len SUI fe lee 7 bn
LY

UNIT 1 REVIEW

REVIEW EXERCISES
Students may do these exercises for further review of this unit.

Lesson 1: Additional Exercises

1. Write (or find) lexical definitions for the following pairs of words that will show the
relationship between them. Explain the relationship: How are the words similar?
How are they different?

a) brother:
sister:

relationship:

b) circle:
sphere:
relationship:

c) newspaper:
magazine
relationship:
i ett oti ee
ee TT ee

4]
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

d) breakfast:
dinner:
relationship:

e) blind:
deaf:
relationship:

f) huge:
tiny:
relationship:

g) to punch:
—

to slap:
relationship:

h to walk:
— eS Eee

to run: ee ee em

relationship: a
ne
ee
ee ke ee

42
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Questions 2—5: Identify the type of definition used for the underlined word in the paragraph.

2 Consider the following description of Noah’s ark: “Noah’s ark was big. What do I mean
by big, you ask? Well, the ark had a volume of about one and a half million cubic feet!”

Rabbits were introduced to a small, populated island where they had no natural
predators, and they rapidly overran the town there. In letter to the editor, one citizen
argued for their elimination, saying that “a rabbit is just a fuzzy rat!”

In the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the author Thomas Kuhn writes,
“In this essay, ‘normal science’ means research firmly based upon one or more past
scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community ac-
knowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.”

In an editorial to the London Times titled “What is Relativity?” (November 28, 1919),
Albert Einstein wrote, “The most important upshot of the special theory of relativity
concerned the inert mass of corporeal systems. It turned out that the inertia of a sys-
tem necessarily depends upon its energy-content, and this led straight to the notion
that inert mass is simply latent energy.”

Read the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell (ifyou do not
have a copy, you may be able to find it on the Internet). In the title, the word game is
purposely ambiguous. Write your own lexical definitions for both meanings.

43
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

7. Consider the following ambiguous words. Think of at least three different meanings
or definitions (including different parts of speech) for each.
age

check

class

date

face

fair

fine

head

light

44
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

mean

point

race

round

62) Sov DS ER San Sel MR mM DY A Ke oe ley

top

3. Can you think of some words that have only one meaning?

45
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

9. Do some research, either in a new dictionary or on the Internet, and discover some words
that have recently been adopted into standard English. Where did the words originate?

Lesson 2: Additional Exercises

1. Explain how the words genus and species are related to the words general and specific.

2. Create genus and species charts for the following terms. Include a genus for the given
term, another species under that genus, and two species for the given term.

coin hero

+ ———
monarch piano

46
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

PPAR (ds OUT ane rhe |

| ie
oe eel
soldier tree

MN OF AGP s |

truck to drink

ieee mine = oe

to kill

3. Consider the examples of proper genus and species charts in Lesson 2 and Exercise
2. In the space below, expand one of these charts by 1) introducing a new, higher
genus, 2) introducing new, lower species, and 3) including more species to broaden
the chart. For more practice, create additional charts on blank paper.

47
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

4. Ina genus and species chart, different species may be produced for a given term de-
pending on the dividing principle being used (as the species of logic could be formal
and informal, or art and science). For each of the given terms, produce two sets of spe-
cies, and identify what dividing principle you are using.

a) water water

dividing
principle:

b) computer computer
Sa ‘Seni Rel

dividing
principle:

b) to talk to talk
epee ape eae

dividing
piiticiple? 2? ah AL SIS clay? Bs

5. Create a genus and species chart that includes the following terms (and additional
terms as needed): book of the Bible, epistle, Genesis, Gospel, Hebrews, Jonah, Luke,
Matthew, New Testament book, Romans.

48
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

What term or terms did you need to introduce to complete this chart? Do the terms
at a given level “line up” properly?

Lesson 3: Additional Exercises

1. Arrange these terms in order of increasing extension: banquet, dinner, formal dinner,
meal, wedding banquet.

. Arrange these terms in order of increasing intension: brother, child, human, sibling,
twin brother.

. Arrange these terms in order of decreasing extension: airplane, fighter, jet, F-14, vehicle.

. Arrange these terms in order of decreasing intension: body, celestial body, gas giant,
Jupiter, planet.

. Consider the term gas giant from the above list. Would adding the adjective ringed
(i.e., ringed gas giant) change the extension? Would it change the intension?

For each of the following, determine the attribute or characteristic that distinguishes
the term from the genus of the term given in parentheses: term (word), idol (god),
whisker (hair), fang (tooth), nightmare (dream), to accelerate (to move).

49
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

term (word) mosis eee ola ous) eee Se ee

idol (god) ==" Sa
whisker (hair)
fang (tooth)
nightmare (dream)
to accelerate (to move)

7. Consider the second chapter of the epistle of James. What distinguishes saving faith
from mere belief?

8. Develop a list of four verbs arranged in order of increasing intension.

Lesson 4: Additional Exercises

1. Define each of the following terms by synonym, example, and genus and difference.
Limit your synonyms to only one word, and include.a variety when defining by example.

a) father synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

b) ghost synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

50
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

c) house synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

d) human synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

e) monarchy synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

f) hoop synonym:
examples:

genus & difference:

. Another common method of defining terms is by etymology, in which the original

language root of the word is used to clarify the meaning. For example, monarchy
comes from the Greek mon + arche, meaning “one ruler.”

architect
manuscript
peninsula
submarine
telegram
translucent

51
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

3. Be attentive to words being defined by your teachers or parents, in the books that you
read, or in sermons that you listen to. What other methods of defining terms, if any,
do they use?

Lesson 5: Additional Exercises

1. What is the primary rule broken by each of the following definitions?

Chair: a four-legged piece of furniture.

Chess: a game played on a checkered board.
Chick: juvenile poultry.
Salad: not a main dish and not a dessert.
To shake: a rapid back and forth motion.
To think: to think about something.
Variety: the spice of life.
Wood: hard material burned in fireplaces.

2. Write proper genus and difference definitions for the following terms:
chair
coin
to drink
pebble
salad a

to snore ee SS ee eee

to throw a
n I
e Et
wood kee
EA
year EE
EE eee

a2
 UNIT ONE: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

3. ‘The following terms are rather “negative.” Write genus and difference definitions for
each of them. Can you define them positively?

absence
death
empty
ignorance
infinite
sin

4. Consider the song “Do, Re, Mi” from the movie The Sound ofMusic. If the definitions
given in the song were considered serious, which would be good definitions by genus
and difference? Of those which would be improper definitions, which rules are broken?

do (doe), “a female deer”:

re (ray), “a drop of golden sun’:
mi (me), “a name I call myself”:
fa (far), “a long, long way to run”:
so (sew), “a needle pulling thread”:
la, “a note to follow ‘so’”:
ti (tea), “a drink with jam and bread”:

5. Read the children’s book A Hole is to Dig. What primary rule is broken by most of
the definitions in that book?

6. In Galatians 5:22—23, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit. Do the terms have a common
genus? Write a genus and difference definition of each term that clarifies the distinc-
tions between them.

genus:

love:

D3
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

jOy: ome i eh past nv ee

peace:
patience:
kindness:
goodness:
faithfulness:
gentleness:
self-control:

Can God be defined by a genus and difference definition? Consider the answer to
question 4 in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “What is God?”: “God is a Spirit,
infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice,
goodness, and truth.” Compare this to how the Bible defines or describes God.

54
 EUS ee

STATEMENTS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS
Contents

Lesson 6: Statements
Exercise 6
Lesson 7: Self-Supporting Statements
Exercise 7
Lesson 8: Supported Statements
Exercise 8
Lesson 9: Relationships between Statements
Exercise 9
Lesson 10: Consistency and Disagreement
Exercise 10

Exercise 11
Lesson 12: Standard Categorical Statements
Exercise 12
Lesson 13: The Square of Opposition
Lesson 14: Contradiction
Exercise 13
Exercise 14
Lesson 15: Contrariety
Lesson 16: Subcontrariety
Exercise 15
Lesson 17: Subimplication
Lesson 18: Superimplication
Exercise 16
Exercise 17
Unit 2 Review Questions
Unit 2 Review Exercises
 a ee ee

en te =¥a ee at ee

ee a ae

oe inte a :
ner ats © =
oo a
ee, —? yy FR

Ye a
i oe ? mi " — -

q i 7ay - ore
- ( “=,
.‘ -
ee es it) Se fw’

a ve iy

i
 KESSON.6

STATEMENTS

A statement is a particular kind of sentence that brings a message

that can be said to be either true or false. Here is an example
of a true statement:

The apostle Paul wrote the book of Galatians. DEFINITION

A statement is a sentence
But statements can also be false. Here is an example: that is either true or false.

The apostle Paul wrote the book ofIsaiah.

In evaluating statements, we should be looking for their truth value.

The first statement above has a true truth value. The second sentence
is said to have a false truth value. If a sentence has no truth value,
then it is not a statement at all. The following are not statements:

Who wrote the book of 1 Timothy?

Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.

The first sentence is a question, and consequently has no truth

value. It is neither true nor false, and therefore is not a statement.
The second sentence is a command. It also has no truth value, and
is not a statement.
There is another kind of sentence that requires a little more care.
It has the form of a statement, but it is not a real statement. Again,
the instrument used to determine this is whether the sentence has a
KEY POINT
truth value. For example:
Questions, commands, and

The round square sweetly kicked the green yesterday. t

Rah een ees
statements because they do
not have a truth value.

57
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

This looks like a statement, but it cannot even be said to be false.

It doesn’t refer to anything. It is best described as nonsense.
FURTHER STUDY Another example of nonsense is this:

What we call nonsense

This sentence is false.
here—“‘This statement is
false” —has a long history.
It is also known as “The Is this true? Then it is false, and therefore true. Is it false? It is
Liar Paradox.” For a more therefore true, and consequently false. Again, there is no real truth
detailed discussion of this value here. This sentence cannot be identified as either true or false.
paradox, read Keith Dev- It is therefore not a statement, at least not the kind of statement that
lin’s book Goodbye, Des-
we can legitimately use in logic.
cartes (published by John
Wiley & Sons). One caution: ridiculously false statements, such as "The queen is
a man" or "Dogs grow two heads when tickled" are not nonsense.
They have a truth value—false—so they are statements.

SUMMARY

A statement is a sentence that is either true or false. Other kinds of

sentences that have no truth value—such as questions, commands,
and nonsense—are not statements.

58
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 6 (12 points)

Examine the following sentences and determine whether or not they are statements. In
the space provided, write down true statement, false statement, question, command, ot
nonsense. Be careful.
. Jesus healed blind men.
. King David was the first king of Israel.
. The tongues of flame at Pentecost were water.
Who wrote the book of Hebrews?
. Children, obey your parents.
. The Bible is the Word of God.
The Great Pyramid is six feet high.
. Who said slaves should obey their masters?
How old was Jesus when He was baptized?
KRWDHND
CONAN
[Link] slithy toves did gyre and gimble.
11. Believe the good news.
12. The United States has fifty states.

Challenge: Write a nonsense sentence that uses correct grammar.

D2
 Hi SS DN

SELF-SUPPORTING
STATEMENTS
nce we have determined that a sentence is a statement, a further
distinction can be made between self-supporting statements
and supported statements. This distinction depends upon the means
by which the truth value of the statement is determined. We will be-
gin with self-supporting statements, which are statements that have
DEFINITION
immediately apparent truth values. We do not need to consider in-
formation outside of the statements to determine their truth values. A self-supporting statement
is a statement whose truth
Self-supporting statements can be divided into three categories:
value can be determined
from the statement itself.
1. Self-reports. A self-report is a statement by a person concerning
his or her own desires, beliefs, or feelings. We usually do the chari-
table thing and take such a statement as true. For example,

I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

The statement refers to the belief of the speaker; it does not pri-
marily refer to whether Jesus is in fact the Son of God. In other
words, the statement could be taken as true, even if Christianity
were false. An atheist can acknowledge that it is true that the speaker
believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

2. Statements that are true or false by logical structure. This is a

statement that can be seen to be true or false by how the sentence is
put together. For example,

Jesus is the Son of God, or He is not the Son of God.

DEFINITION
This statement is necessarily true. It cannot be false, because it cov- A tautology is a statement
ers all the possibilities. A statement which is true by logical structure is that is always true by logi-
called a tautology. Other statements are necessarily false. For example, cal structure.

61
 LINE RVD Uw TL Wn BV Sask

Jesus is the Son of God, and He is not the Son of God.

This is an example of a self-contradiction, a statement that is

false by logical structure.
DEFINITION
A self-contradiction is a
3. Statements that are true or false by definition. Some state-
statement that is false due
to its logical structure.
ments are necessarily true or false because of the definitions of the
words in the sentence. For example,

All triangles are three-sided figures.

This is necessarily true—it is true by definition. The following

example is a statement that is false by definition.

This triangle is an octagon.

According to the definitions of triangle and octagon, the statement

is necessarily false.
SUMMARY

Self-supporting statements are statements for which we need no out-

side evidence to determine their truth value. There are three types:
self-reports, statements that are true or false by logical structure, and
statements that are true or false by definition.

62
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 7 (25 points)

1. List below five examples of a phrase that would introduce a self-report, such as, “It is
my opinion that...”

2. List below five statements of your own that are true or false by logical structure.
Include at least one tautology and one self-contradiction.

3. List below five statements that are true or false by definition. Include at least one true
statement and one false statement.

63
 rece Wry DRA OS 2 abe
iy
}

“= seo. fas
Sky
caag aoe
okt
ee cri d
=" sly
sain UD
ae
lee
ene Orden res
= os. 0
 LESSON 8

SUPPORTED
STATEMENTS
he other kind of statement is called a supported statement. A
supported statement does not stand or fall by itself. It requires
evidence from outside investigation before it can be declared true or
false. Below are three examples of supported statements.
DEFINITION
Solomon had a treaty with Hiram. A supported statement is
It ts raining outside. a statement whose truth
The leaning tower will fall down. value depends on evidence
or information from out-
side itself.
These are obviously statements; they are not questions or com-
mands, and they can be said to be either true or false. But in order
to determine the truth value of any of these statements, it is neces-
sary to go outside the statement. We must gather some information
before declaring them to be either true or false.
One source of this information is authority. How do we know if KEY POINT
Solomon had a treaty with Hiram? Because we cannot travel back Some ways to determine a
in time, we would have to look to some trustworthy, authoritative supported statement’s truth
source, such as the Scriptures. Many of the truths we learn in school value include authority, ex-
are supported by authority. Can you think of others? perience, and deduction.

A second source of information is experience or observation.

Consider the statement “It is raining outside.” Is that statement true
or false? The way to find out is to look outside in order to increase
your experience. When we determine the truth value of statements
by experience, we are trusting not an outside source but our own
senses: sight, touch, taste, smell, or hearing.
A third way to determine the truth value of a supported statement
is by deduction, in which we reason to some conclusion based on
other statements. How do we know that the leaning tower will fall
down? We might reason this way: “All man-made structures will

65
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

eventually fall down. The leaning tower is a man-made structure, so

the leaning tower will fall down.”
FURTHER STUDY All the different types of statements we have studied so far can
In his text Logic, the
thus be organized into the following chart.
hymn writer and logi-
cian Isaac Watts identifies Statement
and describes six methods
“whereby truth is let into Self-supporting statement Supported statement
the mind.” These are: 1) the
evidence of the senses (that by Authority by Experience by Deduction
is, by experience), 2) inward
consciousness (similar to Self-report by Logical structure by Definition
self-report), 3) intelligence
(knowledge of self-evident Tautology Self-contradiction
propositions), 4) reasoning,
5) evidence of faith (that is,
by authority), and 6) direct
inspiration by God.

SUMMARY

Supported statements require one to collect information in order to

determine their truth value. Such information can be collected in
one of several ways, including looking to authority, experience, or
deductive reasoning.

66
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 8 (15 points)

Examine each of the following statements. In the blank at the right, enter the type of
statement you believe it to be. Your options are se/freport, tautology, self-contradiction,
true by definition, false by definition, and supported. If the answer is supported, give the
method used to support it.

. The snow is deep.

. [think Socrates was a wise man.
Paul was an apostle, and he wasn’.
. Jericho fell to the invading Israelites.
. I believe Paris really loved Helen.
. A square has five sides.
The book of Genesis has fifty chapters.
. Jesus is God, or He is not God.
AW
WD
KR. Jesus is God, and He is man.
DON
10.1 think the snow is deeper than last year.
11. Jeremiah was a reluctant prophet.
[Link] mother is a woman.
13. It either works, or it doesn’t.
14. Dante was a poet.
15. The New Testament was written in Greek.

67
 VEZ. :

if i rho ceeseetpate ie
perenne creo ti
i.
a il chee: ban - “gtk ‘a
ALC RER 7
Sn A.

ing Lettieri tsnit:

 HESS ONeg

RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN STATEMENTS
e now need to examine some relationships between state-
ments. Self-supporting statements and supported statements
both can be related to other statements in many different ways.
There are four major relationships with which we are concerned.

1. Consistency. When two statements can be true at the same

time, we say they are consistent. For example, these two state-
ments are consistent.
DEFINITION
Paul was an apostle.
Two statements are con-
The apostle Paul was never in Germany. sistent if they can both be
true at the same time.
These statements are consistent because there is no conflict be-
tween them. Consequently, they can both be true at the same time. If
there is a conflict between the statements, then they are inconsistent.
For an example of inconsistency, we may consider these:

The apostle Paul was never in Germany.

The apostle Paul spent his life in Germany.
It is not possible for both these statements to be true. If he was
never in Germany, then he could not have spent his life there. The
statements are therefore inconsistent.

2. Implication. Two statements are related by implication when the

truth of the first requires or necessitates the truth of the second. If state- DEFINITION
ment P implies statement Q, and if statement P is true, then statement Two statements are related
Q must also be true. The following is an example of an implication. by implication if the truth
of one requires the truth of
P: All Christians are followers ofJesus Christ. the other.
Q: Some Christians are followers ofJesus Christ.

69
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

He who says P must also say Q. This is because P implies Q. It

would not be possible for someone to maintain that all Christians
were followers of Christ, but that on the other hand some were not.
Many students of logic get confused over the use here of the word
some. In common conversation, we tend to contrast “some” with
“others.” That is, to say that some Christians are followers ofJesus
CAUTION Christ implies (we think) that other Christians are not followers ofJesus
In logic, “Some S is P” Christ. But in logic, when we say that some S are P, we are saying
does not imply
ply that “Some nothing about whether other S are P.
S is not 2” Notice that, if two statements are related by implication, then
they are also necessarily consistent.

3. Logical equivalence. If two statements are logically equivalent,

then the first must imply the second, and the second must imply the
first. If they are logically equivalent, then both statements must be
true, or they must both be false. It is not possible for one to be true
and the other false. For an example, we may look at these:

DEFINITION P: No Christians are Buddhists.

Q: No Buddhists are Christians.
Two statements are /ogical-
ly equivalent if they imply If P is true, then Q must also be true. And if Q is true, then P
one another.
must be true. They both imply the other. In this case, they are both
true. If we substituted the word Americans for Buddhists, then both
statements would have been false. It is false that no Americans are
Christians, and it must also be false that no Christians are Americans.
Similarly, these two statements are logically equivalent:
~

P: Some mammals are egg-layers.

Q: Some egg-layers are mammals.
Statements either of the form No S is P or of the form Some S is
P are equivalent to the statements produced when the subject and
predicate of each are reversed. We will consider these and other
types of equivalent statements in more detail later.

4. Independence. If the truth or falsity of one statement has noth-

ing at all to do with the truth or falsity of another statement, we say

70
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

they are independent. There are two indications we may use to help
determine if statements are independent: first, neither statement can
imply the other, and second, the statements must be consistent.
In other words, neither statement can necessitate the truth of the
other statement (implication), and neither statement can necessitate
the falsity of the other (inconsistency). Here are two statements that
are independent.
All Christians have had their sins forgiven. DEFINITION
All tricycles have three wheels. ‘Two statements are in-
dependent if the truth or
If one statement implies another, then the two are not indepen- falsity of one has no effect
dent. If one statement contradicts another, then the two are not °" the truth or falsity of
é ; ; ‘ ‘ the other.
independent. In this case, neither statement implies the other, and
neither statement conflicts with the other. The truth value of one has
no impact on the truth value of the other; hence these statements are
independent of each other.
All these relationships can be organized as shown:

Relationships between Statements

Sa
Consistency Inconsistency
[== eee
Implication Independence

Equivalence

We will expand this chart as we learn about other relationships.

SUMMARY

Four basic relationships between statements are consistency, implica-

tion, logical equivalence, and independence. Any two statements can
be examined in order to determine whether these relationships apply.

71
 bienbea

Se oe -
febrero: Be
Ae nnHBSY.4 Seats Syd SIP PB EIR
true, or they must be ot Rae oe Bo gape ale eaalies oa
eens dee
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 9 (20 points)

With the following five sets of statements, circle Y if the statements are consistent, and
circle N if they are not consistent.

1. The sun is hot.

The moon is white. yo

2. Paul was the author of Romans.

Peter was the author of Romans. Y¥ooN

3. Sally told a lie once.

Sally usually tells the truth. Yoon
4. All fish have fins.
Some fish do not have fins. YIN,

5. God knows all things.

God does not know all things. yoy

For the next five sets of statements, circle Y if the first sentence implies the second, and
circle N if it does not.

6. God created everything.

God created porcupines. ee si
7. All watermelons are green.
Some watermelons are green. YouN

8. Honey is sweet.
I hate honey. yY WN

9. The Bible is the Word of God.

Ecclesiastes is the Word of God. YouN

10. Some trees are tall.

All trees are tall. Yuan

Continued on next page.

73
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Now seek to determine whether the statements in these sets are logically equivalent. If
they are equivalent, circle Y; if not, circle N.

11. No Baptists are Americans.

No Americans are Baptists. Y -aN

[Link] dogs are four-legged animals.

All four-legged animals are dogs. Yo

[Link] apples are oranges.

No oranges are bananas. Y N

14. Some apostles were Scripture-writers.

Some Scripture-writers were apostles. Y° as

15. No windmills are giants.

No giants are windmills. y W

Lastly, examine these sets to determine independency. Circle Y if the statements are
independent; circle N if they are not independent.

16. The typewriter is broken.

Obadiah is my favorite book. Y WN
17. Logic is hard.
Spanish is hard. YN

18. God created all the stars.

God created this star. YN

19. Some triangles are yellow.

Some tricycles are red. YN
[Link] wrote this poem.
Alan has written no poems. Y N

Continued on next page.

74
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Challenge: Consider these two statements: Some soldiers are painters. Some soldiers are
not painters. Answer the following questions, explaining your answers.

Are these statements consistent?

Does the first imply the second?

Are they equivalent?

Are they independent?

75
=
 LESSON 10

CONSISTENCY
AND DISAGREEMENT
ometimes the consistency of statements is difficult to determine.
Two statements may appear to be inconsistent, but upon close KEY POINT
examination they turn out to be consistent. When there appears to Sometimes statements may
be inconsistency, we have a disagreement. There are three kinds of seem inconsistent but actu-
disagreements that concern us here. ally are not.

1. Real disagreements. This is an actual inconsistency. Both state-

ments cannot be true at the same time. For example:

Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus is not the Son of God.

Between these two statements there is real disagreement. Jesus DEFINITIONS

cannot be both the Son of God and not the Son of God. A real disagreement is an
actual inconsistency be-
2. Apparent disagreement. Apparent disagreements are frequently tween two statements: they
the result of differences of opinion or perception. For example: cannot both be true at the
same time.
Smrru: Jthink logic is easy. An apparent disagreement
Jones: I think logic is the hardest course I have ever taken. is a difference of opinion
or perception.
Of course there is no true disagreement here. Both statements are
A verbal disagreement is a
self-reports, and both can therefore be taken as true without con- misunderstanding due to
tradiction: it can be true that Smith thinks logic is easy at the same differing definitions for
time that Jones thinks logic is hard. There is a difference of opinion, one or more words.
but there is no logical contradiction.

3. Verbal disagreement. When different definitions are used for

the same words (that is, when words are vague or ambiguous), verbal
disagreements can result. This does not necessarily mean that there
is true inconsistency. For example:

BE
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Murpuy: One fifth of all high school graduates are il-

literate.
Jounson: One third of all high school graduates are il-
literate.

This difference between Murphy and Johnson certainly looks like

an inconsistency. But the key question here concerns the possible
definitions of the word illiterate. Suppose Murphy intends the word
to mean those who cannot read at all, and Johnson means those who
cannot read past a second grade level. If they are not careful, they
might find themselves in a forty-five minute debate before realizing
that they don’t really disagree.
Because of the possibility of verbal disagreements, it is extremely
important to define terms in the first part of any debate. You want to
argue about substance, not just words. Consider the following ques-
tion: “Ifa tree falls down in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it
make a sound?” Some would say yes, and others would say no. But
their disagreement would almost certainly be based upon how they
are defining the word sound.
SUMMARY

We have considered three common types of disagreements. Real

disagreements are an actual inconsistency between the statements.
Apparent disagreements are differences in opinion or perception.
Verbal disagreements result from differences in definition.

78
 UNITE LWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 10 (12 points)

Give examples of the three types of disagreements. (Even though the names are histori-
cal, your answers need not be.)

Real disagreement

1. Luther:
Erasmus:

2. Lee:
Grant:

Apparent disagreement
3. Peter:
Paul:

4. Homer:
Virgil:

Verbal disagreement (circle the word being defined differently)

5. William:
Robert:

6. Write two statements that are consistent but not independent.

7?
 Torl S$Tud Vine luGporemedsbiecn ae
Right the tlash mere
 LESSON? (1

THE ONE
BASIC VERB
Wy the approach to statements and categorical logic we are
taking in this text, there is only one verb that needs to be
mastered. This is the verb of being—that is, is, are, was, were, will
be, and so on. Although it may seem awkward at first, this is done
to help us analyze statements more easily. Instead of saying No cows
eat meat, we would change the verb and say No cows are meat-eaters. KEY POINT
Another example:
To analyze statements us-
ing categorical logic, trans-
John will run swiftly, late them into a form that
John will be a swift runner. uses the verb of being.

As statements are placed into arguments, it is helpful to avoid

the verbs of ordinary conversation. This makes analysis of the argu-
ment simpler, but it does not mean that there are no pitfalls. Even
the word is can carry different definitions. Consider the following:

God is love.
CAUTION
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind. In ordinary English, the
verb of being can have dif-
Therefore Ray Charles is God.
ferent meanings—be care-
ful you don’t mix them.
There is obviously a problem here. But where is it? The argument
is fallacious because it treats each usage of the word is as though it
were an equal sign (A=B, B=C, D=C, therefore D =A). But is does
not always have this meaning, as we see here. What does Zs mean in
each of those statements?
Here is another ordinary statement: My Little brother throws rocks.
To change statements like this into standard form, use the follow-
ing procedure:

81
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

1. Identify and write down the entire subject. In our

example, the entire subject is “My little brother.”
2. Choose the proper “to be” verb. Consider the
number (singular or plural) of the subject and the
tense (past, present, future) of the verb. My Little
brother is singular, and the verb throws is present
tense. So the proper “to be” verb is és.

CAUTION
3. Rewrite the entire predicate as a predicate nomina-
tive (i.e., a noun). In this case, the predicate throws
Maintain the tense of
rocks becomes a rock-thrower. So the whole proposi-
verbs (past, present, future)
when translating state- tion becomes My little brother is a rock-thrower.
ments to standard form.
Here is an example that is slightly more awkward.

The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch.

The Apostle Paul was a Peter-at-Antioch-rebuker.

Note that, in the above example, the tense of the verb is reflected
in the verb of being; the original statement is in the past tense so the
verb was is used. As you translate the sentences in the exercises, try
to maintain the tense.
And now we go right into practical application. The logic student
works on Exercise 11 would become . . . ?
SUMMARY

In order to help us analyze statements in arguments, we must translate

the statements so that they only use the verb of being (is, are, was, were,
will be, etc). To do this, you should 1) identify and write down the
entire subject, 2) choose the “to be” verb that matches the subject and
predicate, and 3) rewrite the entire predicate as a predicate nominative.

82
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 11 (20 points)

Rewrite each sentence using no verbs but the verb of being.

1. John eats turnips.

2. Rebekah reads e Bible daily.

3. Paul resisted Peter and Barnabas.

4. Susan works hard to resist temptation.

5. Faith produces fruit.

6. The works of the sinful nature lead to death.

7. ‘The donkey rebuked the prophet.

8. The man will sing loudly.

9. Absalom rebelled against King David.

10. God created heaven and earth.

83
 bESSONed2

STANDARD CATEGORICAL
STATEMENTS
Guat statements are statements that affirm or deny some-
thing about a given subject. Every categorical statement can be
translated into one of four forms. The forms are as follows:

DEFINITION
1. A S are P
A categorical statement is
2. No S are P
a statement that affirms or
3. Some S are P denies something about a
4. Some S are not P given subject.

Now how can a statement be translated into one of these forms?

Let us take a sentence that could occur in everyday conversation.

Nobody shuts the door. KEY POINT

Every categorical statement
First we change the verb, as in the previous lesson, and the sen- can be put into one of four
tence becomes this: basic forms.

Nobody is a door-shutter.

Then the sentence can be put into one of our four forms.

No person is a door-shutter.

Statements have two parts—a subject and a predicate. The subject DEFINITIONS
is usually symbolized by the letter S, and the predicate is symbolized The subject of a state-
by the letter P. In a categorical statement, a relationship is expressed ment is the term being
described, or about which
between two classes of objects, the subject class and the predicate
something is asserted. The
class, e.g., people on the one hand and door-shutters on the other. predicate is the term that
Each statement also has quantity and quality. The quantity identi- describes or asserts some-
fies whether the statement is universal (a// and no) or particular (some thing about the subject.

85
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

and some... not). A statement is universal when it makes a claim

about the entire extension of the subject. A statement is particular
when it makes a claim about part of the extension of the subject. ‘The
DEFINITIONS
quality identifies whether the statement is affirmative (all and some),
or negative (no and some...not). A statement is affirmative when it
‘The quantity of a state-
affirms something of the subject. It is negative when it denies some-
ment is the scope of its
claim about the extension thing of the subject. There are four combinations of quantity and
of the subject: universal quality, which give us our four standard categorical statements:
(entire extension) or par-
ticular (partial). Statement uantit uali
The quality of a statement All S are P Universal Affirmative
is the positive or negative No S are P Universal Negative
nature of its claim about Some S are P Particular Affirmative
the subject: affirmative (as- Some SarenotP Particular Negative
serts something) or nega-
tive (denies something).
In developing a formal argument, the statements must be put into
one of these standard forms. The rules for translating categorical
statements into standard categorical form are as follows:

1. The statements must begin with the words all, no,

or some.
2. The verb must be the verb of being: is, are, was,
were, will be, etc.
3. Both the subject and the predicate must be a noun
or a noun phrase.

We have already covered the first two rules. The third is not dif
ficult to understand. For example, in standard categorical form we
do not say

CAUTION All dogs are brown.

Both the subject and
predicate of a standard cat- Instead, the proper form would be
egorical statement must be
a noun or noun phrase. All dogs are brown animals.

86
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

This is because brown is a mere adjective, whereas brown animals

gives us the noun we need. Another example should suffice.

Some houses are big.

Some houses are big structures.

Then, to better understand and analyze our arguments, abbrevia-

tions are used for the sake of convenience. Consequently, the above
statement changes to

Some H are B.

SUMMARY

There are four types of categorical statements: universal affirmative,

universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negative.
These may be translated into standard categorical form: All S is P, No
Sis P, Some Sis P, and Some S is not P, respectively. In each of these,
a relationship is expressed between the subject S and the predicate P.

87
 Lh eT

: he extenshone
oe tiag
aS - oom

«| Aeradementneng

f
“5634
on
vA

Ne
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 12 (22 points)

In the following exercise, analyze each statement. In the blank at the right, put down
what sort of categorical statement it is, i.e., universal affirmative, universal negative,
particular affirmative, or particular negative.

Some cowboys are intellectuals.

All Scripture is God-breathed writing.
Some children are not students.
No Christians are Hindus.
Some books are fiction.
Some writers are not poets.
All dogs are carnivores.
No Trojans are Greeks.
Some soldiers are not brave men.
RWN
CANNY
10. All men are mortals.

Translate the following sentences into one of the four standard forms.

11. Christians will not be condemned.

[Link] false teacher attacks the authority of Scripture.

13.A few churches allow divorce too easily.

14. Many people do not believe in the devil.

89
arian uaeaenannan ae
Si een pene
7, : i 4 Rosa ms

et ee
 EES SON 13

THE SQUARE
OF OPPOSITION
e have already considered some relationships between state-
ments. Now that we have a grasp of the four categorical
statement forms, we will consider some new relationships. These rela-
tionships result from comparing statements with the same subject and
predicate in a special arrangement called the square of opposition.
Universal afirmative statements are also called A statements.
Below is the translation of an A statement: DEFINITION
‘The square ofopposition
1. Everyone who goes to our church believes in God. is a diagram of the basic
2. All our church-goers believe in God. relationships between cat-
egorical statements with the
3. All our church-goers are God-believers. same subject and predicate.
4. All C are G.

Universal negative statements are also known as E statements.

Notice below the transformation of an E statement:

1. None of my friends understands Algebra.

2. No friends of mine understand Algebra.
3. No friends of mine are Algebra-understanders.
4. No Fare A.

Particular affirmative statements, or I statements, are translated thus: KEY POINT

We abbreviate the four ba-
1. Many Christians know a lot about the Bible. sic categorical statements
2. Some Christians know a lot about the Bible. using the letters A, E, I,
and O.
3. Some Christians are Bible-knowers.
4, Some C are B.

at
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

And finally, we have particular negative statements, or O statements:

1. Many books in the Bible do not have a reference to

Satan in them.
2. Some books in the Bible do not have a reference to Satan
in them.
3. Some Bible books are not Satan-referencers.
4, Some B are not S.

Now the four types of categorical statements are related to one an-
other; they are not independent (provided they contain the same subject
and predicate). There is a simple way to diagram the various relation-
ships which is called the square of opposition. The square of opposition
demonstrates how A, E, I and O statements are related. Each one of the
statements is located at a different corner of the square. The universals
are placed at the top and the particulars at the bottom. The afhirmatives
are on the left and the negatives on the right. It looks like this:

All S are P No S are P

Some S are P Some S are not P

If we substitute our abbreviations for the categorical statements, it

then looks like this:

22.
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

A E

SUMMARY

The four categorical statements can be abbreviated using the letters

A, E, Iand O. These can be placed into the corners of the square of
opposition, which will allow us to analyze the relationships between
the statements.

93
 Bae Me PERE 4

3 ~ RES Berek A The. ee a ; = eakthc ees

. ei ies BAe Sis tute HSIN

_ | . Ley ve uh, a Ae ‘? d

BSet re ee
ae i eee ete | 2
;
ss nie 4

i Pe e of oe cae bint af adial j ri emal ys

8) ee?

neiats £8 Lee Re shines of ites eae’

 LESSON 14

CONTRADICTION

he square of opposition presents five different relationships between

categorical statements. They are (1) contradiction, (2) contrariety,
(3) subcontrariety, (4) subimplication, and (5) superimplication.
We will consider contradiction first. Contradiction is the rela-
tionship between A and O statements, and I and E statements. We
KEY POINT
will first look at A and O.
An A statement always
An A statement would be: A// S are P contradicts the O state-
ment with the same sub-
An O statement would be: Some S are not P
ject and predicate. The
same is true for E and I
Between the two statements there is obvious contradiction. The
statements.
contradiction remains obvious if we substitute actual terms for the
abbreviations.

All Christians are forgiven sinners.

Some Christians are not forgiven sinners.

A contradiction also exists between I and E statements.

An I statement would be: Some S are P DEFINITION

An E statement would be: No S are P Two statements are in
contradiction if and only
Again, the situation is unchanged if we substitute real terms for if they always have oppo-
Sand P: site truth values.

Some Christians are forgiven sinners.

No Christians are forgiven sinners.

This contradiction means that the statements cannot both be true.

It is also not possible for both to be false. If one statement is true, the

95
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

other must be false, and vice versa. This can be illustrated with the
example given above. If it is true that some Christians are forgiven
sinners, then it must be false that none are. If it is false that some
HISTORY Christians are forgiven sinners, then it must be true that none are.
This also means that contradictory statements do not have the rela-
Aristotle was the first to
tionship of consistency, which we discussed earlier. Consistent state-
expound the relationships
between categorical state-
ments were statements that could both be true.
ments in his book On In the square of opposition, contradiction is represented by the
Interpretation. They were diagonal lines that are drawn from one corner to another. A line can
presented for the first time be drawn from A to O, or from I to E. These lines, which form an
in what is now the stan- X, represent contradiction.
dard Square of Opposition
in a commentary on Aris-
totle’s book by the Roman
philosopher Apuleius (c.
AD 124-170).

SUMMARY

In the square of opposition, the statements in the opposite corner

are contradictory statements. If one is true, the other one must be
false. This relationship exists between A and O statements, and I
and E statements.

96
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 13 (12 points)

Draw six squares of opposition using the instructions provided.

1. Place the four categorical statements 2. Place A, E, I or O at the appropriate
at each corner, using the abbrevia- corner.
tions S and P.

3. Enter the letters again, and draw in 4. Use dogs as the subject and cats as the
the appropriate lines of contradiction. predicate (so the upper left-hand cor-
ner would say A// dogs are cats).

a= Continued on next page.

97
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

For the last two squares, make up categorical statements of your own and place them in
the appropriate corners, making sure that for each square the four statements have the
same subject and the same predicate.
5:

98
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 14 (8 points)

Analyze the following arguments. Each of them contains two contradictory statements.
Isolate those statements (ignoring the others), translate them into categorical statements
with the same subject and predicate, and diagram where they are located on the square
of opposition. Show all your work.
1. All logic students can see the problem here. However, some of them cannot see the
problem (but they might if they think about it).

2. ‘There is no good reason to believe that the Bible is the Word of God; it is simply the
word of men. I admit that prophecies that were fulfilled is one good reason to believe
it, though I am still unconvinced.
 ris neichs

|
Aig Yo hs
ry
* I '
t 7 oT) ,
.
: :
7.
aT ;
.
 bESSOhk 15

CONTRARIETY

Oe eataaed relationship is that which exists between the universal

tatements A and E. In this relationship, it is not possible for
KEY POINT
both statements to be true. It is possible, however, for both to be false.
For example, here are two contrary statements: Only A and E statements
can be contrary.

All astronauts are men.

No astronauts are men.

‘These statements can be abbreviated:

AllA are M.
DEFINITION
No A are M.
Two statements are con-
It is not possible for both these statements to be true. If all astro- trary if and only if they
can both be false but can-
nauts are men, then it is false that none are. If none are men, then it
not both be true.
is false that all are. At the same time, it is possible for both to be false.
Consider the fact that some space shuttle astronauts were women, and
others were men. In such a situation, both statements are clearly false.
It is important to remember the distinction between contradic-
tion and contrariety. Contradictory statements cannot both be true
at the same time, and cannot both be false at the same time. With
contrariety, both cannot be true simultaneously, but both can be
false at the same time.
The relationship of contrariety is represented by the top horizontal CAUTION
line of the square of opposition. When the terms are the same, all A 9 not confuse contrariety
and E statements are contrary. Here is another example: sich contradicionecere
tradictory truth values are
All snakes are green reptiles. always opposite; contrary
No snakes are green reptiles. Ons

101
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

We would abbreviate these as follows:

All § are G.
No S are G.

You should be able to see that, while both of these statements may
be false, they cannot both be true.
We will now turn to an attempt to identify the relationship in a
discussion between two Christians who differ on the mode of bap-
tism. Jones argued vigorously, “I maintain that all the baptisms in the
New Testament were by immersion.” Smith was not at all daunted
and said, “And I maintain that nobody in the New Testament was
baptized by immersion.” How should we understand this dispute? Is
it a contradiction, or is it a clash of contrary statements? Let’s break
their assertions down.
KEY POINT
In any argument that Jongs: All the baptisms in the New Testament were by immersion.
involves contrary claims, All New Testament baptisms were immersions.
remember that it is pos- All B were I.
sible for both claims to SmitH: Nobody in the New Testament was baptized by immersion.
be false—there may be a No New Testament baptisms were immersions.
third option.
No B were I.

Now we place both statements on the square of opposition and

see that the first is an A statement and the second an E statement.
This means, necessarily, that Smith and Jones cannot both be cor-
rect; the two positions exclude one another. It is possible, however,
for both to be wrong. What if the New Testament teaches that two
modes of baptism are used? (This is not an assertion that it does so,
but rather a reminder that the logical possibility exists.) Then both
Smith and Jones would be wrong.
What would the situation be if Smith maintained that some bap-
tisms were not immersions? His statement would then be Some B
were not I. This would be a relationship of contradiction. If Al/ B are
Tis true, then Some B were not I is false. If Some B were not I is true,
then All B were I is false. In this case, either Jones or Smith must be
correct; both could not be wrong.

102
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

It may seem initially that the clash of a// and no is more funda-
mental than the clash of a// and some... not. This is not the case.
In a clash between al// and no, both can share a claim to falsehood.
But between a// and some... not, one of them must be true and the
other must be false.
Consider one more example. Sally is saying that all the girls in the
high school are stuck up and proud (Al G are P). Jane thinks that
Sally is confused and that none of them are (No G are P). But if it is
true that only some of the girls are proud, then both Sally and Jane
are wrong. Both cannot be right, but both can be wrong.

SUMMARY

A and E statements have a relationship of contrariety. Both cannot

be true, but both can be false. This should not be confused with the
relationship of contradiction, where both cannot be true, and both
cannot be false.

103
 ie el rye aie i Por eit fei a :
i d okSNF ismés ag 3
a

x ihe ye rye
‘ : A ‘
I$
a: 4
Pe ied

Seer ie ae A
’ Veory by ‘peeeryes

ruc | aniteia
“, dual

ae 0ti et
ie
pace i um or ss Wa G33
of) weer <4 wT,
(od bite aut SdJoaass

jones: AE the ba ca oa
All New Tettantg
Rene! werek ie

oo ~ pe ns
“Noa Facer
— > ry! -
oo ,
Tor

a
,
.

dip,
© Aa =
-—"'—s :
7 fee ‘ot
F ” vA
j > ¥ (
— A

2 pouty PE
alae ee aleve
ss ack)a pres + rs
ys. f '< . < .
<iyy sapere a etyi meh
» J
aw,
7 ww >
:

Mew’ it 4 ;
—a oe
a * Coty <Page ,
¥
> =

,
~
 LESSON 16

SUBCONTRARIETY

S ubcontrariety is the relationship that exists between I statements

and O statements. It is represented by a horizontal line on the
bottom of the square of opposition. It is possible for both an I state-
ment and an O statement to be true. But it is not possible for both
to be false. The relationship of subcontrariety is the opposite of con-
KEY POINT
trariety, as seen by comparing them side by side:
Only I and O statements
can have the relationship
Contrariety: Both statements cannot be true, but they can of subcontrariety.
both be false.
Subcontrariety: Both statements can be true, but they
cannot both be false.

For example, here are an I statement and an O statement

respectively:

Some preachers are boring speakers. DEFINITION

Some preachers are not boring speakers. Two statements are
subcontraries if and only
Think about this for a moment. Is it possible for both of these if both can be true but
both cannot be false.
statements to be true? Is the world big enough to contain preachers
who are not boring, as well as those who are? Certainly. Pastor Jones,
for example, may be as boring as they come, while Pastor Smith is
not at all boring. But is it possible for both statements to be false at
the same time? No, it is not. Think for a moment. If it is false that
some preachers are boring, this is the same thing as saying that no
preachers are boring. And if no preachers are boring, then certainly
some preachers are not boring—because all preachers are not boring.
Consider another example:

105
 INTRODUCTORY LOGEC

Some students are intelligent.

Some students are not intelligent.

To see that both of these can be true is not difficult. There will
perhaps be more difficulty in understanding why both cannot be
false. It may help to draw the statements on the square of opposition,
then follow through this argument step by step:

1. If it is false that some students are not intelligent,

that is the same as saying that all students are intel-
ligent (by contradiction).
2. If all students are intelligent, then it must be true
that some students are intelligent (by implication).
3. And if it is true that some students are intelligent,
then it cannot be false that some are (by the laws
of thought).
4. Thus they cannot both be false.
SUMMARY

On the square of opposition, particular statements of different quali-

ties are related by subcontrariety. I statements are subcontrary to O
statements, and O statements are subcontrary to I statements. The
relationship of subcontrariety means that both statements can be
true, but they cannot both be false.

106
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 15 (12 points)

Analyze the following paragraphs, isolate the related statements, and put them into cat-
egorical form. Assign abbreviations to the terms, place them on the square of opposition,
and determine their relationship. One will show the relationship of contradiction, one
the relationship of contrariety, and one subcontrariety. Show your work.
1. Johnny sneered at Billy, “All third-graders are stupid!” Billy shouted back, ineffec-
tively countering Johnny’s point, “That’s not true! None of them are!”

2. Smith said, “Pro-lifers don’t care about children who are already born. All they care
about is their stupid political agenda.” Jones disagreed by saying, “No, there are many
pro-lifers who are involved in caring for children.”

Continued on next page.

107
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

3. Some people I know are always complaining about their jobs; they never seem to quit.
Of course, not everyone complains.

108
 LESSON 17

SUBIMPLICATION

n the relationship of subimplication, the truth of a particular state-

ment can be inferred from the truth of the universal with the same
quality. Given the truth of a universal A statement, the truth of the
corresponding particular statement (in this case, an I statement) is
implied. The same can be said of the other universal/particular rela-
tionship (which is E to O).
If an A statement is true, then its corresponding I statement must KEY POINT
be true. If an E statement is true, then its corresponding O statement Subimplication can only
must be true. What follows is an example of subimplication. exist between pairs of A
and I statements and pairs
A statement: All Christians are God’ children. of E and O statements.
I statement: Some Christians are God’ children.

If it is true that all Christians are God’s children, then it must be

true that some of them are. It cannot be false that some Christians
are God’s children if all of them are.
Here is an example of subimplication between an E and O.
DEFINITION
E statement: No logicians are poets.
O statement: Some logicians are not poets. Subimplication is the
relationship between a uni-
versal and particular state-
If it is true that no logicians are poets, then it must be true that ment of the same quality,
some are not poets. It is not possible for this O statement to be false. in which the truth of the
If the E statement is true, then the O statement must also be true. universal necessitates the
On the square of opposition, the relationship of subimplication truth of the particular.
can be pictured with two arrows on either side of the square, going
from top to bottom. The relationship of subimplication has nothing
to do with falsity. It is concerned solely with the implication of truth.
The truth of particular statements is inferred from the truth of the

109
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

corresponding universal statement. So now you can recognize that

the examples of implication given earlier in the text were actually
more specifically examples of subimplication.
SUMMARY

Subimplication is the relationship from A to I statements, and E

to O statements. In this relationship, the truth of the universal af-
firmative implies the truth of the particular affirmative, and in the
same way, the truth of the universal negative implies the truth of
the particular negative.

110
 BESSONms

SUPERIMPLICATION

aN we have learned, subimplication is the implication of truth for

one statement on the basis of the truth of another. In contrast
to this, superimplication is the implication of falsity. With subim-
KEY POINT
plication, the inference is from a universal statement to a particular
statement of the same quality (A to I, or E to O). This relationship
Superimplication can only
exist between pairs of I
was pictured by vertical arrows on either side of the square of op- and A statements and pairs
position, going from top to bottom. In the relationship of superim- of O and E statements.
plication, the arrows go up the other way (from I to A, or O to E).
In superimplication, given the falsity of a particular statement, the
falsity of its corresponding universal is implied. In other words, the
falsity of an A statement can be inferred from the falsity of an I state-
ment. In the same way, the falsity of an E statement can be inferred
from the falsity of an O statement.
For example:

I statement: Some Christians are atheists.

A statement: All Christians are atheists.

This is straightforward. If it is false that some Christians are

atheists, then it must be false that all of them are. Understanding
the relationship between O and E statements is perhaps a little DEFINITION

more difficult. Superimplication is the

relationship between a uni-
versal and particular state-
O statement: Some dogs are not mammals. ment of the same quality,
E statement: No dogs are mammals. in which the falsity of the
particular necessitates the
If it is false that some dogs are not mammals, then it must be false falsity of the universal.
that no dogs are mammals. Work through this carefully again using
the square of opposition:

111
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

1. If it is false that some dogs are not mammals, then

it must be true that all of them are mammals (by
contradiction).
CAUTION 2. If all of them are mammals, then it must be false
Subimplication and super- that none are mammals (by contrariety).
implication only work in
one direction. Subimpli- Remember that between A and I statements, and E and O
cation carries truth from statements, we can distinguish two relationships—subimplication
universal to particular,
and superimplication. With the relationships previously studied,
while superimplication car-
ries falsity from particular the arrow between the letters should be understood as a two-way
to universal. street. A to O and O to A have the same relationship—contradic-
tion. But with either subimplication or superimplication, the arrow
goes only one way.
We can now draw the complete square of opposition, including
all of the relationship lines.

All S is P Universal No S is P

THINKING DEEPER Contrariety

Relationships from the A ¥picneeecesnetitetnssi
¥
eaten z Fy 3 : 3 H H Hy

square of opposition hold

even for statements that do
not have the same subject
and predicate. For example,
consider the fact that “I
have a son” implies that “I
am a father.” Place “I have ye ie : Contradiction
a son” in the position of the
A statement, “I am a father” Affirmative
edT] ney .
Negative
in the J position, “I am not
Superimplication Superimplication
a father” in the E position,
and “I do not have a son”
in the O position. You can
verify that contradiction,
contrariety, subcontrariety, i i 3 :H
_gconososeevcceceneneconenscereconeencescareeseesonesotoossonosoossoreootenccotonannsnnieieinttee
t Hi : Fi Hf Hi ; Hi : Doaes
ROOEE.
Pn
ARR
v ©
: ; H i: HH : i i

subimplication, and super-

implication still apply to : Subcontrariety |
:
Some S is P
these statements.
Particular ome S is not P

112
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Note that Appendix A shows the complete square of opposition

with a description of each of the relationships.

SUMMARY
A relationship of superimplication exists from I to A statements,
and from O to E statements. In this relationship, if the particular
statement is false, then the universal statement of the same quality
is false. This completes the relationships on the square of opposition.

113
 \once dee stunts sctemaig
siden itcabs photcke dante

4 et Rapa):‘iiieaegleial qienois
ini Ifmicy) hae ip——
mee

ahrnpes ja Bie eg oF
senplication Wi ithe ite Berge

e Dot ween ej letucrs sh ould being Rede

; atu cIw A nave d
aie

‘© can now deaw <n

oh oven
pa |
altafshe walaationship {i
lines:

' —. 7 J
Top _ =
i,
;
:
Pd
ar ty
—
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 16 (12 points)

In the following exercise, write the relationship that exists between the two given state-
ments in the blank at right. Their order does matter.

1. All cowboys are rough men.

Some cowboys are not rough men.
2. Some ladies are not rude women.
No ladies are rude women.

3. All Christians are forgiven sinners.

Some Christians are forgiven sinners.

4. No Christians are Muslims.

Some Christians are not Muslims.

5. All french fries are greasy food.

No french fries are greasy food.

6. Some pictures are beautiful art.

Some pictures are not beautiful art.

7. Some atheists are irrational men.

No atheists are irrational men.

8. All eighth graders are brilliant logicians.

Some eighth graders are brilliant logicians.

9. All violinists are right-handed players.

Some violinists are not right-handed players.
10. Some feminists are feminine.
All feminists are feminine.

11. All Democrats are Republicans.

Some Democrats are not Republicans.
[Link] bards are story-tellers.
Some bards are story-tellers.

115
 ~
iy tii? iznolieiey aily
5
’
wirw .2mNOxe Z

RMT, §lguos ou ayodwor,

' t.
j | ;
her
PIN

% ;
Ay
i.
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Exercise 17 (32 points)

1. Draw the square of opposition, including all the arrows and relationships. Include the
abbreviated categorical statements in the corners, using S and P.

In the following: problems, assume that the first statement in each set is true. Then de-
termine the truth value of each remaining statement in the set. Circle 7if it is true, F if
it is false, and ? if the truth value cannot be determined.

2. All students are young people.

No students are young people. dR tye,
Some students are young people. ee oe cg

3. No angels are demons.

Some angels are demons. ee
Some angels are not demons. Toe

4, Some computers are word processors.

All computers are word processors. TF
No computers are word processors. TF

Continued on next page.

117
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

5. Some laws are not biblical laws.

All laws are biblical laws. T Eee
No laws are biblical laws. ‘bee

On the first line, translate the statement into standard categorical form. Do not abbrevi-
ate. On the second line, write the categorical statement that has the given relationship
to the statement translated above it.

6. Students never eat frog legs.

Standard form:
Contradiction:

7. Many children make mud pies.

Standard form:
Subcontrariety:

8. Everybody here has eaten.

Standard form:
Contrariety:

9. A few of the meals were not appetizing.

Standard form:
Superimplication:

Challenge: Expand the “Relationships between Statements” chart in Lesson 9 (page 71)
to include the relationships from the square of opposition.

118
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

UNIT 2

REVIEW QUESTIONS
Answers can be found in the lesson under which the questions are listed.

Lesson 6: Statements
1. What is a statement?
2. What are the possible truth values of a statement?
3. What are the types of sentences that are not statements?

Lesson 7: Self-supporting Statements

What is a self-supporting statement?
What are the three types of self-supporting statements?
Give an example of a self-report.
What is the difference between a tautology and a self-contradiction?
WN Give an example of a statement that is false by definition.
MR

Lesson 8: Supported Statements

1. What is the difference between a supported statement and a self-supporting statement?
2. What are three methods of determining the truth value of supported statements?
3. Do any other methods exist?

Lesson 9: Relationships between Statements

What does it mean that two statements are consistent?
What does it mean that one statement implies another?
What are logically equivalent statements?
What does it mean that two statements are independent?
eon
Se
ate Can two statements be consistent yet not be related by implication or independence?

Lesson 10: Consistency and Disagreement

1. What is another term for a real disagreement?
2. What is the difference between an apparent disagreement and a verbal disagreement?

119
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Lesson 11: The One Basic Verb

1. What are the different verbs of being?
2. What is the procedure for rewriting statements into statements that use only verbs
of being?

Lesson 12: Standard Categorical Statements

1. What are the two main parts of a categorical statement?
2. What is the quantity of a statement?
3. What is the quality of a statement?
4, What are the four types of categorical statements expressed in terms of their quantity
and quality?
5. What are the four types of categorical statements expressed in terms of S and P?

Lesson 13: The Square of Opposition

1. What are the four types of categorical statements abbreviated by one letter?
2. Draw the square of opposition using these abbreviations.

Lesson 14: Contradiction

1. What two pairs of statement types contradict each other?
2. What does contradiction mean in terms of the truth value of the pair of statements?
3. How is contradiction diagrammed on the square of opposition?

Lesson 15: Contrariety

What pair of statement types are contraries?
What does contrariety mean in terms of truth value?
How is contrariety diagrammed on the square of opposition?
What do contradiction and contrariety have in common?
me
WM
ON How do they differ?

Lesson 16: Subcontrariety

1. What pair of statement types are subcontraries?
2. What does subcontrariety mean in terms of truth value?
3. How is subcontrariety diagrammed on the square of opposition?
4. How do contrariety and subcontrariety differ?

120
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Lesson 17: Subimplication

1. What two pairs of statement types are related by subimplication?
2. What does subimplication mean in terms of truth value?
3. How is subimplication diagrammed on the square of opposition?

Lesson 18: Superimplication

What two pairs of statement types are related by superimplication?
What does superimplication mean in terms of truth value?
How is superimplication diagrammed on the square of opposition?
What do subimplication and superimplication have in common?
How do they differ?
ae
Sa Draw the complete square of opposition, including all the relationships.

121
 GNI BIE! O71 Tb OG INET,tor
“ayy rate ie 1 eet ees sates fo 4 oa

1 tO Sie pe3agl eG borane nolte

Logericai Ststeanenaeniale ae rt. A. ff

sand ieprgehasia eds ADR eo =e
gy Sbulmanbnres iteanTIot M1 ALONE
ad ange Tecmuemp? oly ie+ brateiy
if reemabeenhgne aan
— a x

| il head aegii=aoneinottg <

pF
mre Lae Cae co babies Pee ~~ nS Ey

, '
ere a ~
a eee eae rs oe= : as ian ST eet

; - =
¢ - z
he
at
.
i te = i
ey -
< =

3 ~
i

=— —

—
 UNIT 2

REVIEW EXERCISES
Students may do these exercises for further review ofthis unit.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 6

1. The text says that statements are always either true or false. How would you respond to
a scoffer who tried to deny this by claiming that there are no absolutely true statements?

2. If statements are always either true or false, how are we to understand statements
for which we do not know the truth value? Consider this claim: “Somewhere in the
infinite decimal expansion of the number pi (m = 3.14159 . . .)the digits 1234567890
appear in that order.” No man knows if this is true or false. Is it a statement? Who
does know the truth value?

3. There is a classic riddle of a missionary being threatened by natives in this way: “We will
let you decide how you will die. Ifyou say something true, you will be burned at the stake.
If you say something false, you will be boiled in oil.” The missionary escaped this dilemma
by saying, “I will be boiled in oil.” Was this sentence true, false, or nonsense? Explain.

123
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

4. When something is truly authoritative, you are required to respond to it submissively.

The ultimate authority for Christians is the Bible. The Bible contains the types of
sentences considered in this lesson. The submissive response to a command, such as
Romans 12:1—2, is to obey it. What is a submissive response to a statement, such as
Romans 5:8? What is a submissive response to questions, such as Romans 8:31—35?
What type of sentence is Romans 11:33? What would be a submissive response to it?

Consider Titus 1:12, in which Paul quotes a Cretan who said that Cretans are always
liars. Should the Cretan’s claim be considered nonsense? Why or why not?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 7

Why do we usually consider self-reports to be true? Is there ever a situation in which
we should challenge someone who makes a claim about his own desires, beliefs, or
feelings? If so, give an example.

124
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

. A tautology is true by logical structure and can take the form p or not p. Canyou think of
an example of a tautology in this form that someone might use in ordinary conversation?

. A self-contradiction is a statement that is false by logical structure. Is there ever an

appropriate use of a self-contradiction?

Consider Esther's statement in Esther 4:16, “If I perish, I perish.” Is this a tautology?

What is the truth value of the statement Unicorns have one horn?

. Which of the types of statements considered in this lesson should we understand this
to be: I think that triangles have three sides or I do not think that triangles have three sides?

b25
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lesson 8

1. Consider the following supported statements. Explain how one would determine
the truth value of each statement. Your options are by authority, by experience, or by
deductive reasoning.
a. Most teenage boys like to argue.

b. The capital city of Japan is Tokyo.

c. If you are reading this sentence then you can see.

d. It’s nine o'clock on a Saturday.

e. The product of two odd numbers is an odd number.

f. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God.

2. Is it possible that all three methods (authority, experience, and deduction) may be
used to determine the truth value of a given statement? Consider this claim: “In the
absence of air, two different masses will fall toward the earth at the same rate.” How
might different people know that this is true?

126
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Consider this claim: “Unicorns do not exist.” Can the truth value of such a statement
be determined by experience? If not, is there any way to determine the truth value of
such statements?

Consider this claim: “California will probably experience a major earthquake within the
next twenty years.” Such a statement is supported by the inductive reasoning of experts.
How does this method differ from the method of experience? of deductive reasoning?
Can you think of other statements that are known to be true by inductive reasoning?

Lay
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lesson 9

ile The text says that when two statements can be true at the same time, they are consistent.
Can two statements that happen to be false at the same time still be consistent? Consider
these two false statements: “The apostle Paul spent his life in Germany” and “The apostle
Peter was never married.” Which relationships do these statements have with each other?

The text says that two statements are related by implication when the truth of the first
requires the truth of the second. Can one false statement imply another false statement?
For example, does “No dogs are mammals” imply that “Some dogs are not mammals”?

Can a false statement imply a true statement? For example, does “All mammals are
dogs” imply that “Some mammals are dogs”?

Is a statement equivalent to itself? If so, how else is a statement related to itself?

128
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

5. No Sis P is equivalent to No P is S, and Some S is P is equivalent to Some P is S (when

Sand Pare the same terms). Are statements of the form All S is P equivalent to All P
is S? Are statements of the form Some S is not P equivalent to Some P is not S? If not,
give examples of such pairs of statements that differ in truth value.

6. Can two statements with the same subject be logically independent?

7. Give an example of consistent statements that are neither independent nor related
by implication.

8. Identify every relationship that exists between each of the following pairs of statements.
This is a green apple. Pluto is the ninth planet.

All roads lead to Rome. Route 66 leads to Rome.

Some people like chocolate. Everybody likes chocolate.

No captains are cowards. No cowards are captains.

029
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

This is question 7. This is question 8.

Some frogs are princes. Some princes are frogs.

The Bible is God’s Word. The Koran is not God’s Word.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 10

1. Consider two people having an apparent disagreement (a difference in opinion). How
could such a dispute change into a real disagreement?

. Why is it so important to define terms at the beginning of a debate?

Romans 4 seems to disagree with James 2:14—26 regarding faith and works in the jus-
tification of Abraham. Given that the infallible Scripture cannot contradict itself, what
sort of disagreement might this be? Consider doing some further study on this issue.

130
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

Additional Exercises for Lesson 11

Translate the following statements so that they only use the verb of being.
1. The Eagle [Apollo 11 spacecraft] has landed.

2. A prudent man conceals knowledge.

3. Gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here.

4. Seventy-six ones led the big parade.

5. The forests will echo with laughter.

6. We who have believed do enter that rest.

7. Angels we have fom on high.

8. The ie: fish moved silently through the night water.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 12

Translate the following statements into standard categorical form, and identify the quan-
tity and quality of each.
1. In all labor there is a profit.

131
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2. Most of the Trojans fell before Diomed’s onslaught.

3. The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.

4. Many brave souls went hurrying down to Hades.

5. There is none righteous.

6. A few names in Sardis have not defiled their garments.

7. The Argives held their peace as Hector spoke.

8. None of the Greeks approaching Troy spoke a word.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 13

1. Fill in the blanks of the following chart.

No S is P
Particular affirmative
O
Universal affirmative
Some S is P
E
A
Some S is not P

132
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

2. Why do you suppose the vowels A, E, I, and O are used to represent the four categori-
cal statements? What type of statement could we represent by the letter U?

3. Select any two of the following terms: cats, dogs, reptiles, mammals. Put the two terms you
have selected as the subject and predicate of the four categorical statements, and put them
in the square of opposition. Which statements are true? Which are false? How many true
statements and how many false statements appear in every square of opposition?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 14

Write the contradiction of the given statements. Which is the true statement: the given
one, or its contradiction?

1. All men are sinners.

2. No pleasures are lawful activities.

3. Some Christians are Jews.

4. Some worshiped beings are not idols.

133
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lesson 15

1. Give an example of contrary statements that are both false, and then give an example
of contrary statements, one being true and the other false.

2. Ifsomeone is making a claim that you want to deny, which type of statement should
you choose so that at least one of you is correct: the contradiction, or the contrary?

3. Consider these two inconsistent statements: Pluto is a planet. Pluto is not a planet. Are
these statements related by contradiction or contrariety? Explain.

4. Can contrary statements both be true? What if the subject does not exist? For ex-
ample, could “All Martian scientists are people eaters” and “No Martian scientists
are people eaters” both be considered true, since there are no Martian scientists?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 16

1. Give an example of subcontrary statements that are both true. Then give an example
of subcontrary statements, one being true and the other false.

134
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

2. Without looking back at the text, restate the argument given as to why two statements
related by subcontrariety cannot both be false.

3. Could subcontrary statements be considered false if the subject does not exist, e.g., “Some
Martian scientists are people eaters” and “Some Martian scientists are not people eaters”?

4. Ifa given universal statement is true, can you figure out the truth value of the remain-
ing statements on the square of opposition using only contradiction, contrariety, and
subcontrariety? Can you do the same for a given false particular statement?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 17

1. Find all the examples of subimplication that appear in the text prior to lesson 17.

135
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2: Some logicians translate A// S is P as “If a thing is S then it is P” and Some S is P as

“There exists an S which is 2” Translated this way, a universal statement does not
claim that the subject exists, but a particular statement does claim that something
exists. How would this affect the relationship of subimplication? How would it affect
the rest of the square of opposition? Does All Martian scientists are people eaters imply
that Some Martian scientists are people eaters?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 18

1. Some logic texts consider subimplication and superimplication as two ways of looking
at the same relationship, called swbalternation. Thus, the square of opposition would
only have one arrow on each side pointing both up and down. With this understand-
ing, draw a genus and species chart that includes the following terms: consistency, con-
tradiction, contrariety, equivalence, implication, inconsistency, independence, relationship
between statements, subalternation, subcontrariety, subimplication, superimplication.

136
 UNIT TWO: STATEMENTS

For items 2-7, identify the relationship that exists between the first and second statements.

All czars are dukes. Some czars are dukes.

Some spiders are insects. No spiders are insects.

All meats are desserts. No meats are desserts.

Some peptides are not acids. No peptides are acids.
Some castles are not palaces. All castles are palaces.
Rw
NAY
Some spies are touts. Some spies are not touts.

For items 8—12, name the square of opposition relationship being described.
8. Ifa statement is true, the statement of a different quantity and quality is false.

9. Ifa particular statement is false, the universal of the same quality must be false.

10. Both statements of the same quantity can be true, but they cannot both be false.

11. If a universal statement is true, the particular of the same quality must be true.

[Link] statements of the same quantity can be false, but they cannot both be true.

For items 13—16, assume that the first statement in each set is false. Then determine the
truth value of each remaining statement in the set. Circle Tif it is true, Fif it is false, and
? if the truth value cannot be determined.

[Link] caps are derbies.

No caps are derbies. bomen
Some caps are derbies. 1s nae
Some caps are not derbies. eee

137
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

14. No newts are salamanders.

Some newts are salamanders. op we
Some newts are not salamanders. [ohare
All newts are salamanders. ‘Vises eee

15. Some emus are ostriches.

All emus are ostriches foe Se
No emus are ostriches Ts oe Me
Some emus are not ostriches. p teay Ui

[Link] swamis are not Punjabis.

All swamis are Punjabis. T--F?
No swamis are Punjabis. 6 eae cases
Some swamis are Punjabis. fSecon’ «ace

138
 WNL 2

SYLLOGISMS
AND VALIDITY
Contents

Lesson 19: Arguments

Exercise 18
Lesson 20: The Syllogism
Exercise 19
Lesson 21: The Mood of Syllogisms
Lesson 22: The Figure of Syllogisms
Exercise 20
Exercise 2]
Lesson 23: Truth and Validity
Lesson 24: Testing Syllogisms by Counterexample
Exercise 22

Exercise 23
Lesson 26: Testing Syllogisms by Rules
Exercise 24
Exercise 25
Unit 3 Review Questions
Unit 3 Review Exercises
 %

; é

3 e : Secon
% am Mo < 4 ahh
% im y= f een_.hati BY abel
ee

ne utes Fe: TE
al . -e ; kinetetwcdabe sigh Ra lawah aitat
a; euce cy Aes nerve gollye bos wogtelt esned
>> & 2 eb 4 ape ee

rt Pd, ae © Op ey es ie oe

‘ewe

fina * oo (nie
7.0
eerie # le es oe &
a ’
aoe 04 « “Ne iar

Oy Malohae arParas &

& melts A:
 IESSON'19

ARGUMENTS

H aving completed the units on terms and statements, we now be-

gin the study of formal logic by considering logical arguments.
Many people think an argument is nothing more than a quarrel-
some disagreement. But as the word is used in logic, it means nothing
of the kind. A quarrel occurs when people are irritated or angry with
DEFINITION
each other. In formal logic, an argument is simply a set of statements,
one of which appears to be implied or supported by the others. An argument is a set of
statements, one of which
There are two types of statements in an argument. The first type is
appears to be implied or
called a premise. The second is called a conclusion. The conclusion supported by the others.
is the point or terminus of the argument, the statement that appears
to be implied or supported by the others. The premises are those
statements that support or imply the conclusion.
An argument will never contain more than one conclusion. It can
contain more than one premise. When you hear words like therefore,
thus, so, and consequently, there is reason to believe that you are about
to hear the conclusion of an argument. Common words that indi-
cate premises are since, because, for, and given that. If a statement in
an argument is immediately followed by words indicating a premise,
it is probably the conclusion. This statement you are now reading
must be a conclusion, because it is followed by the word because.
The following is an example of a formal argument, written in DEFINITION
informal language. The conclusion of an ar-
gument is the statement
The Bible is the Word of God, and the book ofJonah is that appears to be implied
definitely in the Bible. We must therefore conclude that by the other statements in
the argument, which are
the book ofJonah is the Word of God.
called premises.

There are two premises here. The first is that the Bible is the Word
of God. The second is that the book of Jonah is in the Bible. The

141
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

conclusion, which follows from this, is that the book of Jonah is the
Word of God.
Here is an argument which is similar in form, but in which the
conclusion does not follow from the premises.
CAUTION
We formally evaluate ar- The Bible is the Word of God, and the Book ofMormon
guments not by the truth is definitely not in the Bible. We must therefore conclude
of the conclusion but by that the Book ofMormon is not the Word of God.
whether the conclusion
follows logically from the
Christians must take special care in situations like this. Just be-
premises.
cause you agree with the conclusion (the Book ofMormon is not the
Word of God) does not mean the argument is a good one. The ques-
tion is not whether the conclusion is true, but whether it follows
from the premises. In this case it does not. The premises contain no
information about whether the Bible is the only word from God. If
the premise had said that the Bible was the sole Word of God, then
the conclusion would have been warranted. Look at a similar argu-
ment where the error is a little more obvious.

Given that the \liad was written by Homer, and that the
Odyssey is definitely not in the \liad, we must therefore
conclude that Homer did not write the Odyssey.

The problem should be obvious. For the conclusion to follow, the

premises would need to tell us that the //iad was the only thing that
Homer ever wrote.

SUMMARY

An argument is a set of statements, one of which (the conclusion)

appears to be implied by the others (the premises). Arguments con-
tain only one conclusion, which usually starts with therefore, thus,
so, or in conclusion. Arguments may contain more than one premise.
Premises usually start with because, since, for, or given that. In a good
argument, the conclusion is supported or implied by the premises.

142

e
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 18 (10 points)

Underline the conclusion in each of the following arguments.

jis All theology is a study in infinity, so all calculus problems are theology, because all
calculus problems are a study in infinity.
. All space stations are important technology, but some space stations are not a prod-
uct of American ingenuity. Therefore some important technology is not a product
of American ingenuity.
Some pagans are idolaters, because no pagans are Christians, and no Christians are
idolaters.

. All objects in free fall are weightless, and all meteoroids are objects in free fall.
Therefore all meteoroids are weightless.

All marsupials are pouched animals, and some marsupials are not Australian mam-
mals. Consequently, some Australian mammals are not pouched animals.
Some Socratic sages are not perspicacious people, since some Socratic sages are meta-
phorical masters, and some perspicacious people are also metaphorical masters.
All murderers are criminals, and some heroes of the faith are murderers, from which
it follows that some criminals are heroes of the faith.

No street legal vehicles are stock cars. Thus no racing car is street legal, since all stock
cars are racing cars.

Some conclusions are not easily located statements, for all easily located statements
are sentences at the end of arguments, and some sentences at the end of arguments
are not conclusions.

10. Given that some pagan literature is great writing, and no great writing is worthless
instructional material, we must conclude that some pagan literature is not worthless
instructional material.

143
 ox

jipteaoh nj weal see BROT oe: he tf ate

&2

“Fa
7

a Bn

>
¢ tL)
ie
—— :
 IkESSON*20

THE SYLLOGISM

he syllogism is a particular form for organizing categorical

statements into an argument. A categorical syllogism is made
up of three categorical statements. The first two statements are the
premises, and the last is the conclusion. What follows is an example
of a syllogism.
DEFINITIONS

All red plants are living things. A syllogism is a deductive

argument with two prem-
All roses are red plants.
ises and three terms.
Therefore, all roses are living things.
A categorical syllogism
is a syllogism consisting
If we abbreviate, our syllogism looks like this (note that the sym- of three statements in cat-
bol .. means therefore): egorical form.

All M are P
All S are M
“. ALS are P

All syllogisms contain three terms. The terms in the above syllo-
gism are S, P, and M. In order to structure an argument properly, it
is necessary to have a good understanding of these terms. The terms
are called, respectively, the minor term (S), the major term (P), and DEFINITIONS
the middle term (V/. The major term of a syl-
The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion. The minor logism is the predicate of
term above was roses, or S. The major term is the predicate term of the conclusion and is used
the conclusion. In our syllogism, the major term was Living things, in one premise. The minor
term is the subject of the
or P. The middle term is the term that is in both premises but is
conclusion and is used in
not in the conclusion at all. It is called the middle term because it the other premise. The
connects the premises together. In our example, the middle term middle term is found once
was red plants, or M. As you might suspect, the major premise is in each premise.

145
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

the premise that contains the major term. Traditionally, the major
premise is the first premise in the argument. The minor premise is
the premise that contains the minor term. There is no middle prem-
DEFINITIONS
ise, only a middle term.
The major premise of a
In our example above, the major premise was All red plants are
syllogism is the premise
containing the major term.
living things (it contains the major term—l/iving things). The minor
The minor premise con- premise was All roses are red plants (it contains the minor term—
tains the minor term. roses). The conclusion follows because the argument is valid. If the
premises were true, the conclusion would necessarily have to be true.
(Note that the minor premise happens to be false, but this does not
affect the validity of the syllogism.)
Consider the following syllogism:

HISTORY All ringed planets are gas giants, so no inner planets are
Aristotle introduced most ringed planets, since no inner planets are gas giants.
of the key terms in this
section—including sy/- This syllogism is not in the traditional order for standard categori-
logism, premise, and major, cal syllogisms. To put it into standard form, this procedure should
minor, and middle term—
be followed:
in his book Prior Analytics.
He was not always as pre-
1. Find the conclusion. In our example, the conclu-
cise as many would expect
or prefer. For example, his sion is No inner planets are ringed planets. We know
definition for syllogism is this because it starts with the word so and precedes
too broad: “A syllogism the word since.
is a discourse in which, 2. Find the major term. The major term is the
certain things being stated,
predicate of the conclusion. The major term of the
something other than what
is stated follows of neces-
example is ringed planets.
sity from their being so.” 3. Find the major premise. The major premise is the
premise containing the major term. Since the major
term is ringed planets, the major premise is All ringed
planets are gas giants.
4. Find the minor premise. The minor premise
KEY POINT
contains the minor term. Obviously, it is also the
The standard order for statement that is neither the major premise nor the
statements in a syllogism is
conclusion. In the example above, the minor premise
(1) major premise, (2) minor
premise, and (3) conclusion.
is No inner planets are gas giants. To check, we see that
This order is assumed in the this does contain the minor term, inner planets.
following lessons as we ana-
lyze syllogisms.
146
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

5. Write the syllogism out in standard order. Stan-

dard order is major premise, minor premise, conclu-
sion. Thus the example syllogism in standard order
looks like this:

All ringed planets are gas giants.

No inner planets are gas giants.
Therefore, no inner planets are ringed planets.
SUMMARY

A syllogism is a deductive argument with two premises and three

terms. The minor term is the subject of the conclusion, the major
term is the predicate of the conclusion, the middle term is not in
the conclusion, but it is in both premises. The major premise is the
premise containing the major term. The minor premise is the prem-
ise containing the minor term. The standard order for categorical
syllogisms is: major premise, minor premise, conclusion.

147
 oe

ere Te ones

ute f aes PSA ers

a a a 7‘ a) re 4 repeaters Hh!

revit llye wlan th Appeel

x “
“Se a

dhcuie &
vote “ait See
(i tone ai cori slbisinn Say — ;
sda 2h seh ete ett Se ?
“HG
nagar vit!

reais sgt
a ae
ai » Ae ——
; “ Ara an meg? a Pj
oe * 4 a

bys fs east
eo
<
-m Bae ; ae
Te
: a
-
45> ” a
4 =
SS ie SILAS
— y
uP “=
a + >.
aU . 7
F *

ay
; ;
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 19 (35 points)

Identify the major, minor and middle terms for each syllogism. The syllogisms are not
necessarily in standard order.
L All theology is a study in infinity, so all calculus problems are theology, because all
calculus problems are a study in infinity.
Major term:
Minor term:
Middle term:

. All space stations are important technology, but some space stations are not a prod-
uct of American ingenuity. Therefore some important technology is not a product of
American ingenuity.
Major term:
Minor term:
Middle term:

. Some pagans are idolaters, because no pagans are Christians, and no Christians are idolaters.
Major term:
Minor term:
Middle term:

. All objects in free fall are weightless, and all meteoroids are objects in free fall.
Therefore all meteoroids are weightless.
Major term:
Minor term:
Middle term:

All marsupials are pouched animals, and some marsupials are not Australian mam-
mals. Consequently, some Australian mammals are not pouched animals.
Major term:
Minor term:
Middle term:
Continued on next page.

149
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Rewrite the following arguments into standard order for categorical syllogisms.
6. Some Socratic sages are not perspicacious people, since some Socratic sages are meta-
phorical masters, and some perspicacious people are also metaphorical masters.
oe ee

All murderers are criminals, and some heroes of the faith were murderers, from which
it follows that some criminals are heroes of the faith.

No street legal vehicles are stock cars. Thus no racing car is street legal, since all stock
cars are racing cars.

Some conclusions are not easily located statements, for all easily located statements
are sentences at the end of arguments, and some sentences at the end of arguments
are not conclusions.

10. Given that some pagan literature is great writing, and no great writing is worthless
instructional material, we must conclude that some pagan literature is not worthless
instructional material.

150

w
—
 LESSON 21

THE MOOD
OF SYLLOGISMS
1 es the syllogism is composed of categorical statements, the
syllogism can be abbreviated following the same rules concern-
ing the substitution of letters for terms. In this book, we will have KEY POINT
a standard substitution for the various terms. S will represent the
We can work with syl-
minor term, P will represent the major term, and / will represent logisms more easily if we
the middle term, as in the previous lesson. abbreviate the terms in the
Notice how the following syllogism is transformed: statements.

Some black cars are fast cars.

All Model T cars are black cars.
Therefore, some Model Tcars are fast cars.

This syllogism is invalid; the conclusion does not follow from the
premises. Nevertheless, we may still abbreviate it in order to analyze
it readily. When abbreviated, it looks like this:

Some M are P
All § are M DEFINITIONS
“. Some S are P The schema of a syllogism
is a representation of it,
When a syllogism is arranged in standard order, with the standard having statements in stan-
dard order with standard
abbreviations for the terms, we call this arrangement a schema. If two
abbreviations of its terms.
arguments follow the same logical form, we can say that they have
the same schema. For example, an argument that substituted dogs for The mood of a syllogism
is a three-letter description
Model T cars, brown animals for black cars, and slow animals for fast
of the types of categorical
cars, would have the same schema as the argument above. In other statements it contains when
words, the abbreviations for the two arguments would be identical. arranged in standard order.
We now come to what is called the mood of the syllogism. The
mood refers to the various possible combinations of A, E, I and O

151
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

statements that make up the syllogism. It tells you what kinds of

statements the syllogism contains when arranged in standard order.
The mood of our syllogism above is IAI, because the major premise
is an I statement, Some M are P, the minor premise is an A state-
ment, All S areM, and the conclusion is an I statement, Some S are P.

SUMMARY

Terms in a syllogism may be abbreviated in just the same way as they

are in a categorical statement: P is the major term, S is the minor
term, M is the middle term. A schema represents the structure of the
syllogism in standard form using these abbreviations. The mood of a
syllogism shows the types of its various statements in standard order.

152
 EE SSOW 122

THE FIGURE
OF SYLLOGISMS
he figure of a syllogism is a number identifying the placement of
the middle term in the argument. There are four possible ways
the middle term can be arranged in the two premises. In a figure 1
syllogism, the middle term is the subject of the major premise and the
predicate of the minor premise. In figure 2, the middle term is the
DEFINITION
predicate of both premises. In figure 3, the middle term is the subject of
The figure of a syllogism
both premises. In figure 4, the middle term is the predicate of the major
is a number from 1 to 4
premise and the subject of the minor premise. The four figures can thus identifying the placement
be diagrammed as shown (all/nosome/not are removed for clarity): of its middle term.

Fig. 1 Fig.2 Fig.3 Fig. 4

Major premise: MisP PisM MisP PisM
Minor premise: SisM SisM MisS Miss

Consider the following syllogism, and note how the middle term
is arranged according to the pattern of figure 1.

No Hindus are Christians.

Some Indians are Hindus.
Therefore, some Indians are not Christians.

The middle term is Hindus, because it occurs in both premises but

not in the conclusion. In the major premise, Hindus is the subject.
In the minor premise it is the predicate. If you look again at figure
1, you will see that this is the pattern for the figure 1 syllogism.
Now we will schematize the syllogism (i.e., set out its schema):

No M is P.
Some S is M.
:. Some S is not P.

153
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

The mood of this syllogism is EIO. That is, the major premise is
an E statement, the minor premise is an I statement, and the conclu-
sion is an O statement. As we have already pointed out, it is also a
figure 1. We can therefore describe the syllogism as an EIO-1.
When the mood and the figure of the syllogism are listed together
DEFINITION
this way, we are describing the form of the syllogism. The form is
The form of a syllogism is the mood plus the figure.
the mood and figure of the
Below are examples of schemas having figures 2, 3 and 4, all with
syllogism.
the same mood, EIO.

Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4

No P isM No M is P No P is M
Some S is M Some M is S Some M is S
“.SomeS isnotP ..SomeS isnot P .. Some S is not P

Given that there are four possible types of categorical statements

for each premise and the conclusion, and four possible figures, there
are 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 possible combinations of mood and figure—that
is, 256 forms of syllogisms. These are all shown in Appendix B.

SUMMARY

The figure of a syllogism is a number identifying the placement of

the middle term in the premises. The middle term may be the sub-
ject or predicate of each premise. There are four possible combina-
tions. When this figure is listed after the mood, it is a description of
the syllogism’s form.

154
ee
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 20 (26 points)

Write the form (mood and figure) of the following syllogisms on the blank to the right.
The syllogisms are in standard order.
1v All Bibles are books.
Some periodicals are not books.
Therefore, some periodicals are not Bibles.

Some speeches are sermons.

No sermons are short events.
Thus some short events are not speeches.

All students are geniuses.

Some blondes are students.
Consequently, some blondes are geniuses.
. No fish are mammals.
No fish are snakes.
So no snakes are mammals.

Rewrite these syllogisms in standard order and give their mood and figure.
5. All combatants are fighters, so all Spartans are fighters, since all Spartans are combatants.

Mood and figure:

. Some sailors are not poets, because all sailors are mariners, but some poets are not mariners.

Mood and figure:

Continued on next page.

155
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

7. All books are paper, and some plaques are not paper. Hence, some books are not plaques.
a a a aa ee

ee

sg
rd yk ee ee
Mood and figure:

156
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 21 (32 points)

Write out the schemas for the given forms.

1. EIO-1 3. AOO-3

2. IAI-2 4, OIO-4

Now develop your own syllogisms to meet the requirements of the given form. Make
sure your syllogisms are in standard order.
DGABEs1

6. EAO-2

7. AII-3

8. EAE-4

157
 AW Pia

2 ae
ORR me kg aapleg el
— = ve
“~ ;
; It
5
Mis
7
VO.
f ap
2h
eree, ar
at 136 SAW >
se ae a a ec ee ~

vaste LO : | c a”
suuntetetsineteecatiiicans fete

———

‘ny "
‘ae

———

SI, a np

as a ee a — —t

cl =
ot ee
= penitent ee
a S
*

ale ee Lt me
a Se en en RS —
x

at pe = titi tna ee ee eer

.-*

i
 ERSS ONe2S

TRUTH
AND VALIDITY
\ X Then you examine a syllogism, the first thing you should look
foor is validity. We say that a syllogism is valid ifthe conclusion
is necessarily true given that the premises are true. In other words, if
the premises are true, and the syllogism is valid, then the conclusion
has to be true. Ifa syllogism has true premises and a false conclusion,
DEFINITION
we know it is invalid. In a valid syllogism, the premises may be false.
But ifthey were true, the conclusion would have to be true also. This A syllogism is valid if and
only if the premises imply
is because validity depends on the form of the argument only, not the
the conclusion.
truth of the statements. Here is an example of a valid syllogism; one
of the premises happens to be false, but the syllogism remains valid:

All dogs are brown animals.

All poodles are dogs.
Therefore, all poodles are brown animals.

If it were in fact true that all dogs were brown, then all poodles
would necessarily be brown. The problem with the syllogism is the
falsehood of the first premise, not the structure of the argument. To
test for validity, grant provisional “truth” to the premises, and then
see if the conclusion would have to be true.
Here is an example of an invalid syllogism, with all true premises
and a true conclusion.
CAUTION
All dogs are mammals.
All dogs are canines. Validity depends only on
the form of the argument,
Therefore, all canines are mammals.
not on the meaning or
truth of the individual
Both of the above premises are true, and the conclusion is also statements.
true. But if you examine the syllogism carefully, as you will learn

159
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

how to do in the next few lessons, you will see that the conclusion
is not implied by the premises (substituting the word animals for
canines makes this clear). It is this lack of implication that makes
the syllogism invalid.
Once a syllogism has been examined for validity (and it is found
DEFINITION
to be valid), it may then be examined with a view toward the truth
A sound syllogism is valid or falsehood of the conclusion. If the syllogism is invalid, then there
and has true premises.
is no reason to proceed further. But if it is found to be valid, it is still
necessary to examine the truth of the premises. If they are found to
be true, then the conclusion must be true as well.
If a syllogism is valid and the premises are true, it is said to be
sound. You should realize, then, that the conclusion of a sound syl-
logism must be true.
Do not confuse truth with validity! Once we learn the basic rules
CAUTION
of formal logic, it is easy to see how prevalent this confusion is. In
public debate, the applause is frequently reserved not for those who
Know the difference be-
tween truth and validity.
reason well but for those with whom the audience agrees.
Statements are true or Here is a final example where the premises are true and the con-
false, arguments are valid clusion is necessarily true.
or invalid.
All dogs are mammals.
All poodles are dogs.
Therefore, all poodles are mammal...

This syllogism is valid and the premises are true, so the conclusion
is also true. This is a sound syllogism. The different types of syllogisms
with respect to validity and truth can thus be arranged as shown.

Argument

Valid Invalid

Sound Unsound

You can see from the chart that there are two ways for a syllogism
to be spurious: first, it can simply be invalid; second, it can be valid
but unsound.

160
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

SUMMARY
A syllogism is valid if the truth of the conclusion follows from the
truth of the premises. If a syllogism has true premises and a false
conclusion, it is invalid. The validity of a syllogism is not the same
thing as the truth of the conclusion. A syllogism may be valid and
have a false conclusion. It may be invalid and have a true conclusion.
Or, as in a sound syllogism, it may be valid and have a true conclu-
sion. Validity depends only on the form of the argument.

161
 ba

nn salle ip lati

ses, fgubetit “word any

ito digi seiis
Pg vorah opie
s . TS Laem i UMA aeor ti . t
. 2 2b Steve Bae s501f1I1G
tive oto viliitey ar bipers 2i Tis
. afnteak TU Aen : Si ‘and
4 A Teatab
4 ore se TN MT D
és eo = sa wa Ft
FST,
;
VES Gale DURE Se Wee BL eee Blot 3
Lon y i" mis al cae j is*S ot
Ty
i ys é i. 20% OEY 3 VRE Oe Soo
~
aes
: chert? f
t ache ee Va
muais 3} to mOLegs Ee *vine <raaa: ime
Oe
F

: : =e
=< ~ SS;

é , ~
es Peak y
~ — =

ee eee) ae is < castusion §sv Te

a a, 54 gem A iw « an th rvs Got fox Pa }

Miaches

RLS case) 47 73 Pgh? Ms ig

v

GL05 Ate Ags

i |

thevetate
* , all poodl=
DOME ait ore§ PR
a _

Bem et> ¥: ;

This syHogiany is valid and the §(deat

tT.

(eG true. sea 8stra: eytie -

i i rapect
™ 0 vatiinYy MEN
ad toes fe

~ail
J

a me ap
, yy
 bESSONc24

TESTING SYLLOGISMS
BY COUNTEREXAMPLE
he validity of a syllogism is determined solely by the form.
Validity is not determined by the meanings of the individual
statements. Certain forms are always valid, and the other forms are
invalid. There are many ways to test the validity of a syllogism. The
two this text are concerned with are testing by counterexamples
and testing by rules. We will begin our testing of syllogisms with
counterexamples. How can you test a syllogism by counterexample?
This is accomplished through the substitution of terms. Suppose KEY POINT
someone has presented an argument like this: ‘The validity of syllogisms
depends solely on their
form. Certain forms are al-
Some Christians are not critical thinkers.
ways valid; other forms are
Some humanists are not critical thinkers. always invalid.
Therefore, some humanists are Christians.

The syllogism is invalid. This can be shown by recalling the defini-

tion of validity. We said that a syllogism with true premises and a false
conclusion is necessarily invalid. \f we were to substitute terms in this
syllogism such that the premises were obviously true and the conclu-
sion obviously false, we would show the syllogism to be invalid. For
example, let us substitute women, men, and lawyers for Christians, hu-
manists, and critical thinkers. The syllogism would then look like this: DEFINITION

Some women are not lawyers. A counterexample to a

Some men are not lawyers. syllogism is a syllogism of
the same form as the origi-
Therefore, some men are women.
nal, but with obviously
true premises and an obvi-
Both syllogisms have the same form (OOI-2), and are therefore ously false conclusion, in
both valid, or both invalid. The second has an obviously absurd con- order to show the original
clusion though both premises are true. Some women are not lawyers, to be invalid.

163
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

and some men are not. If both premises are true (and they are), and
the conclusion is false (which it is) then the problem has to be with
the form of the syllogism. That is, it is invalid. Let’s consider another
example (and counterexample).

No man is immortal.
Some angels are not men.
Therefore, some angels are immortal.

To test with a counterexample, we want to construct a syllogism

with the same form (EOI-1), but with true premises and a false con-
clusion. We could do this:
CAUTIO
No dogs are horses.
Do not assume a syllogism
Some cats are not dogs.
is valid if you cannot think
of a counterexample to it. Therefore, some cats are horses.
You may just need to be
more creative. It is much easier to see the problem with the second syllogism than
with the first. Nevertheless, both have the same form, and stand or
fall together. If the second is invalid, then so is the first—of necessity.
Note that if you were testing an argument for validity but were
unable to develop a counterexample, there is one of two possibili-
ties. Either the argument is valid, so no counterexample is possible,
or you are not being creative enough. If you suspect an argument is
invalid, but you have not been able to think of a counterexample, try
starting with just a false conclusion. Invent major and minor terms
that when substituted make the conclusion false. Then write these
terms in the premises, leaving the middle term blank. To finish the
counterexample, you simply need to find a middle term that makes
both the premises true. For example, suppose you wanted to write a
KEY POINT counterexample for this argument:
When developing counter-
examples, try starting with All Paul’s writings are first-century compositions.
a false conclusion, then
Some epistles are not Paul’s writings.
find a middle term that re-
sults in true premises.
Therefore some epistles are not first-century compositions.

164
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

‘To write a counterexample, we start by making the conclusion false.

If we substitute students for epistles, and people for first-century com-
positions, we get

All are people.

Some students are not
Therefore some students are not people.

The conclusion is false (since all students are people), so we simply

need to find a middle term to make the premises true. Many terms
would work, so we will leave it up to you to finish.

SUMMARY

An invalid argument may be exposed through the use of a

counterexample. A counterexample is a syllogism of the same form
as the original argument, but with obviously true premises and an
obviously false conclusion.

165
 Picrsred

“we
inp hae

; Ae Gea
de tyiss

: itsrwch cask
ih be fit
” | ie { Rae in

ineiea
nee sae

e . = - 3 | ; ‘.
bel PES ROPER. ars
rears i Sie. : =

iy a. +

“ey
“¥
wy?36 . i
Sohaa

go >

oar

-
re
e

t
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 22 (27 points)

Test the following syllogisms by counterexample. If no counterexample is possible,
write “valid.”
1. Some cherubim are not angels.
Some angels are not seraphim.
Therefore, all seraphim are cherubim.

2. No wind instruments are guitars.

All wind instruments are expensive instruments.
Therefore, no expensive instrument is a guitar.

3. All NIV Bibles are Zondervan publications.

Some KJV Bibles are not Zondervan publications.
Therefore, no KJV Bible is an NIV Bible.

4. Some Baptists are not Presbyterians.

No Nazarene is a Baptist.
Therefore, all Nazarenes are Presbyterians.

Continued on next page.

167
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

5. All Calvinists are predestinarians.

No predestinarian is an Arminian.
Therefore, some Arminians are not Calvinists.

6. Some colds are not fatal diseases.

All cancers are fatal diseases.
Therefore, some cancers are not colds.

Challenge: Work through the 256 forms of syllogisms in Appendix B, using counterex-
amples to determine validity. There are 232 invalid forms and 24 valid ones. As you work
through them, remember that if you cannot figure out a counterexample, it is either valid
or you need to be more creative. Also, you would be greatly assisted in working through
them more quickly if you recall what you learned about the relationships between state-
ments. Good luck!

168
 LESSON: 25

DISTRIBUTED
TERMS
e have seen that counterexamples are one method for deter-
mining the invalidity of syllogisms. You may also have real-
ized that the method of counterexamples is not very helpful when KEY POINT
the syllogism happens to be valid. Because of this, we need another
Counterexamples can only
method for testing syllogisms for validity. show a syllogism to be in-
This method involves the use of rules. Because these rules depend valid—they cannot show a
upon an understanding of distributed terms, we will define them syllogism to be valid.
first. The terms in a syllogism are said to be either distributed or
undistributed. By distributed term, we mean that the term refers
to all members of its category. We can tell if a term is distributed or
not simply by its placement in a categorical statement. We will look
at each categorical statement in turn.

All § are P—Here S is distributed and P is undistrib-

DEFINITION
uted. The S refers to all of its class, the P does not. The
statement All dogs are mammals says something about A distributed term is a
term that, within a state-
all members of the subject class, all dogs, but it does
ment, refers to all members
not refer to all members of its predicate class. It does of its category.
not say anything about all mammals. It only says that
some of them are dogs.

No S are P—Both S and P are distributed. The S refers

to all of its class, and so does the P. For example, the
statement No dogs are cats makes a claim about all dogs
(they are not cats) and about all cats (they are not dogs).

Some S are P—Both S and P are undistributed. No

claim is being made about every S or every P. It only
says that some of the S are P, and that some of the
Pare S.

169
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Some S are not P—S is undistributed and P is distrib-

uted. Consider the O statement Some astronauts are not
men. This statement says nothing about all astronauts.
It only says that some of them are not men. However,
The subjects of universal
statements and the predi-
it does make a claim about all men. This claim is that
cates of negative state- all men are not those astronauts being referred to in
ments are distributed. the subject (namely, female astronauts).

It may help you to remember that the subjects of universal state-

ments are distributed (by definition of “universal”) and the predi-
cates of negative statements are also distributed. The rules for testing
a syllogism are explained in the next section. You will quickly see
why it is necessary to understand what a distributed term is.
SUMMARY

A distributed term is a term that refers to all members of its category.

Universal statements distribute the subject; negative statements dis-
tribute the predicate.

170

e
re
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 23 (15 points)

1. What is a distributed term?

Underline the distributed terms in the following statements.

Some athletes are not honors students.
No clear liquid is a solid object.
Some politicians are corrupt men.
All chefs are contented people.
See
No Bible reader is an ignorant person.
Some millionaires are not lazy men.
co
NDSome Baptists are immersionists.

Underline the distributed terms in the following syllogisms.

9. No wind instruments are guitars.
All wind instruments are expensive instruments.
Therefore, no expensive instrument is a guitar.
10. Some colds are not fatal diseases.
All cancers are fatal diseases.
Therefore, some cancers are not colds.

ah
 a

HEA PH 8 Gelbre x
trivduls dvemat
5 tows wl iets acandttenirt
WAS 4 :
mint, biowever, : >;
Ai. iin jadi is that

borne teed tet

=>" af

Teo cB erties boi rdisails sds vubtll§

. Pry rod Lae 228
Pda LE: fFich:
Ge=
:
said hikestab Saksela pi

sacs e+HOT SieLc: PRES

‘ cia 3 oY wet 4
+ ' 31g;
2K} bee: Woe ;HE plas
BERS sD <tc
org TROT ac3adn oldie2 |
aS G oe

eco € at HN SIE
+ eames

as sale) at HHH
“ae ati0 GUISE AGSce 5d sstenen
‘tee Bri lwuilet otht pi votes tenadiiaiiatead ail
= =
2 sisineg ai asraeneny t Live
TRE SVR ES Oa aeseounsend bate:
jstite © 2 aascerient siege ont
sige boc ion onae

~
 LESS Ne2e

TESTING SYLLOGISMS
BY RULES
here are five rules for testing the validity of syllogisms. If any
of these rules are violated, then a syllogism is invalid. If the
syllogism passes all five, then it is valid. The rules are the following:

1. In at least one premise, the middle term must be

distributed.
2. If aterm is distributed in the conclusion, it must
also be distributed in its premise.
KEY POINT
3. A-valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises.
To establish the validity of
4. A valid syllogism cannot have a negative premise
a syllogism beyond doubt,
and an affirmative conclusion. test it with the five rules
5. Avalid syllogism cannot have two affirmative prem- of validity.
ises and a negative conclusion.

Compare the last three rules. If you give them some thought, you
should recognize an implication of rules 3 and 5: Ifa syllogism has
a negative conclusion, then one premise must be affirmative and the
other negative. You should also see from rule 4 that if a syllogism has
an affirmative conclusion, then it must have two affirmative prem-
ises. So, these last three rules can be combined even more briefly into
this denser “rule”: The number of negative conclusions in a syllogism
must equal the number of negative premises. If a syllogism has zero
negative conclusions (i.e., an affirmative conclusion), then it must
have zero negative premises. If it has one negative conclusion, then
it must have exactly one negative premise. We will now discuss each
of the rules in more detail.

Rule 1: In at least one premise, the middle term must be distrib-

uted. This means that the middle term must be either the subject

173
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

of an A statement, the subject or predicate of an E statement, or the

predicate of an O statement. Below is a small paradigm showing
which terms are distributed or undistributed in categorical statements.

>
|
Oj |
Cc
OiC)O)
Cic/O|O|#

When you are examining a syllogism, the first rule is applied by

looking at what types of statements the middle term is in. For ex-
ample, consider the following syllogism:

All men are mortals.

No mortals are angels.
Therefore, some angels are not men.

The middle term is mortals because it appears in both premises.

The middle term occurs in two types of statements, an A and an E.
Now the middle term is not distributed in the A statement, because
it is the predicate. It is distributed in the E statement, because both
terms are distributed in an E statement. The syllogism therefore
passes its first test.
When this rule is broken, it is known as the Fallacy of the
Undistributed Middle. Here is an example in which this fallacy
is made:
KEY POINT
Having an undistrib- All men are created beings.
uted middle term basically
means that a syllogism
Some created beings are angels.
is making no necessary Therefore, some angels are men.
connection between its
The middle term, created beings, is not distributed in either prem-
premises.
ise. ‘Thus, this syllogism is invalid; it has an undistributed middle.
The reasoning behind this rule is that the middle term “connects”
the two premises. If the middle term is undistributed in both, mean-
ing that in neither premise does it refer to all of its members, then

174 |
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

no necessary connection is being made between the premises. In

the example, the created beings of the major premise is a separate
class from the created beings of the minor premise. The only way a
connection is necessarily made between the two premises is for the
middle term to be distributed in at least one of them.

Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must also be

distributed in its premise. This rule is a result of the more general
rule that, in a valid syllogism, the conclusion cannot go beyond the
KEY POINT
premises. If a term in the conclusion refers to all members of a par-
A term distributed in
ticular class (i.e., the term is distributed), then the term in its premise
the conclusion must be
must refer to all members of its class. This rule can be illustrated by distributed in a premise,
looking again at the first example under rule 1. The conclusion is an because a conclusion can-
O statement. By looking at our paradigm, we can see the predicate not “go beyond,” or make
of an O statement is distributed. That term must therefore be dis- a more general statement
than, its premises.
tributed in the premise in which it occurs. That happens to be the
major premise. The term is men. The term men is distributed in the
premise, as we can see by looking at the paradigm again.
When this rule is broken it can have one of two names. If the
major term is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the premise,
it is known as the Fallacy of an Illicit Major. Predictably enough,
if the minor term is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the
premise, it is known as the Fallacy of an Illicit Minor. Here is an
example of an illicit major:

Some rocks are granite.

No granite is a sandstone.
Therefore some sandstones are not rocks.

You see that the major term, rocks, is distributed in the conclusion,
but it is not distributed in its premise. So this syllogism is invalid.

Rule 3: A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises. Any KEY POINT
syllogism that has only E or O statements as premises is therefore A syllogism cannot be
invalid. This rule is an easy one to apply. The following combinations valid unless at least one
of premises are therefore invalid: OO, OE, EO, and EE. One of the premise affirms something.

175
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

premises must affirm something. If they are both negations, no valid

conclusion can be drawn. Consider the following example:

Some Turks are not Muslims.

No Hindus are Muslims.
Therefore, some Hindus are not Turks.

If we apply our rule, we can immediately see that the syllogism

violates it. The premises are O and E statements, respectively, which
are both negative. If the rule is broken, we say that it is the Fallacy
of Two Negative Premises.

Rule 4: A valid syllogism cannot have a negative premise and

an affirmative conclusion. The first thing to do is determine the
nature of the conclusion. If it is afirmative (A or I), then it cannot
KEY POINT
have an E or O statement in the premises. Consider this example:
In syllogisms, affirmative
conclusions require all af- All Turks are Muslims.
firmative premises.
No Hindus are Muslims.
Therefore, some Hindus are Turks.

This syllogism breaks our fourth rule. The conclusion is affirma-

tive (an I statement), and the minor premise is a negative premise (an
E statement). In testing with this rule, look first at the conclusion.
If it is affirmative, quickly scan the premises and determine if either
is negative. If one is, then the syllogism is necessarily invalid. Any
syllogism that breaks this rule may be said to commit the Fallacy
of a Negative Premise and an Affirmative Conclusion.

Rule 5: A valid syllogism cannot have two affirmative premises

and a negative conclusion. With this rule, the means of testing is
similar to the means with the fourth rule. If the conclusion is nega-
KEY POINT
tive, then one of the premises must also be negative. For example:
A negative conclusion in
a syllogism requires one
All whales are mammals.
negative premise.
No canaries are mammals.
Therefore, some canaries are not whales.

2g
a
ae

176

a
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

We see right away that the conclusion is negative. This means

that one of the premises has to be negative as well, which the minor
premise is. Here is an example that breaks this rule:
THINKING DEEPER

All whales are sea creatures. Because of how they trans-

late universals and particu-
Some sea creatures are warm-blooded animals.
lars, many modern logicians
Therefore, no warm-blooded animals are whales. include this sixth rule of
validity: “A valid syllogism
When this rule is broken, the syllogism makes the Fallacy of Two cannot have two universal
Affirmative Premises and a Negative Conclusion. premises and a particular
conclusion.” The associ-
ated fallacy is the Existential
Fallacy. They argue that a
universal statement does
not assume that the subject
exists, but that a particular
statement does (for why this
is, see the additional exer-
cises for Lesson 17). Conse-
quently, if the premises are
universal and the conclusion
is particular, the conclusion
goes beyond the premises
and is therefore invalid.

SUMMARY

In testing by rule, there are five rules to keep in mind. Ifa syllogism
breaks just one rule, it is invalid. If it passes all five, it is necessarily
valid. There are two rules that involve distributed terms: the middle
must be distributed in at least one premise, and if a term is distrib-
uted in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premise
in which it occurs. The last three rules involve the quality of the
statements. A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises, it
cannot have a negative premise with an affirmative conclusion, and
it cannot have two affirmative premises and a negative conclusion.

1/7
 < ia

= iad BE oa Tt HM sarod
‘ sal = ei elatyy ty LARSEN * ies e 8 Muy Of vein
an , ie > vi fe mas = eS iat ue BShid

= ne 4 44a 5 } : AP 3 asic 7 i 7 ie yecae

r one SE 3
“tfP aR 1‘ite

: wolent j ic} syrh Pie ve Bade: iRise 5

is e ~ .
a f

‘
oS

rT Cai
=

toed Be‘patie prermase

© a=

ts Sy 5 - a. ee 2 4S ; : a
SIOL. (Sy Tee eee Meo 1s derercatiee
- :
E = : |
Regt OE ert bgee) Pt es ves, ’ ew '}
: of i 3 * cue = 7 oad | > a. &Sy nen ,
ira (ms sie -

tis ie
ies he Torts | eves owes
9

ty: \? StAtCeecred eget TO eee fees nsader

esr dens thisic s=
~

1 x 7
Jih> SR oraes FICE Bx
WT #3 a
~ ‘ 5 5 i
FMOEEL DE pies SEs sith iy: nied - or , Ea J :
yer 4 2a fa7 Zit ere I ek
actallanns silt dunitice »
S
Biv H ets PH Pk

Biistniowstorsels oi bes Ut ite,MERCI) re ay

, 4 ak BPO aah ec ore Waa dyuy ag
“43
: on *
ettsre wry
were
chess tothe Adsi, @brea
a

2 ative si ereahied, peennliets Aa

Hg. ceih eat eng

Seal geHM 85

+
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 24 (26 points)

In the following exercise, analyze the syllogisms. Identify which rules are violated in
the syllogism by writing the name of the fallacy or fallacies. If no fallacy is made, write
“valid.” The premises are not necessarily in standard order. (Hint: the first syllogism
violates three rules.)

ee Some chefs are not fat people.

No fat person is a contented person.
Therefore, all chefs are contented people.

. All water is clear liquid.

No clear liquid is a solid object.
Therefore, some water is not a solid object.

. Some Christians are not Bible-readers.

No Bible-reader is an ignorant person.
Therefore, no ignorant person is a Christian.

. All Muslims are Hindus.

All Hindus are Christians.
Therefore, some Christians are not Muslims.

. No dog is a cat.
Some cats are female.
Therefore, some dogs are female.

Some politicians are corrupt men.

Some corrupt men are Mafia members.
Therefore, some politicians are Mafia members.

Continued on next page.

179
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

No honors students are rugby players.

Some athletes are rugby players.
Therefore, some athletes are not honors students.

Some challenging games are not fun games.

Some fun games are not chess.
Therefore, all challenging games are chess.

Some professionals are millionaires.

Some millionaires are not lazy men.
Therefore, no lazy men are professionals.

10. Some Baptists are immersionists.

No Presbyterian is a Baptist.
Therefore, some Presbyterians are not immersionists.

Challenge: For additional practice, find the fallacies made by syllogisms used in previ-
ous exercises.

Exercise 18

i SS ee Se eS eee

ea
ea
ee
eee esee es SS

Exercise 20

ee
4.
6.
ye
Continued on next page.

180
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 21

oe
Pe
aa

Exercise 22

od
li
call
aa
a

Exercise 23

o:
10.

181
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

Exercise 25 (15 points)

Write schemas of syllogisms that have the given fallacies.

1. Illicit major, illicit minor.

2. Two negative premises, undistributed middle.

3. Two negative premises, negative premise and affirmative conclusion.

4. Two affirmative premises and a negative conclusion, illicit major.

5. Illicit major, illicit minor, undistributed middle, and two affirmative premises and a
negative conclusion.

183
 2 t:eSRe TEM Y ‘
SS

@einioy 21) @ seiaasx a?

r ‘ oes a z : a :

Ved set ate golive to aamsdoe ste

on a tll soiem sill ee
S He

aeiuinpeheteamiee

Ss Ps fs a Bs3 t+
ake
1
"wee

—— —
- —_ oe —
=~ ~

De
Na ——S
~~ rb nape B SO oy ee : ;
~ ~ ~ >_< —
> in
<a ~
‘on
east ov 1a aan wwiHieuans a
a

5
=f

<> <eantieestlieimmptelle
& Oise @ohl: Ie Swenemitts owt las alibi bouwdiocibny dori
‘
an dboillt aot:
in oS
 UNIT 3

REVIEW QUESTIONS
Answers can be found in the lesson under which the questions are listed.

Lesson 19: Arguments

. What is a logical argument?
. What is a premise?
What are some words that introduce a premise in an argument?
What is a conclusion?
. What are some words that introduce a conclusion in an argument?
NNR
WN . How else might a conclusion be identified in an argument?

a 20: The Syllogism

. Define syllogism by genus and difference.
. What are the three terms in a syllogism?
Where is the major term found in a conclusion?
Where is the minor term found in a conclusion?
Where is the middle term found?
. What is the standard order for the statements in a syllogism?
NAW
RON
= What is the procedure for arranging a syllogism into standard categorical form?

Lesson 21: Mood of Syllogisms

r What is the schema of a syllogism?
2, What is the mood of a syllogism?

Lesson 22: Figure of Syllogisms

: What does the figure of a syllogism identify?
a How many different figures can a syllogism have?
D. What is the form of a syllogism?
4. How many different forms of syllogisms exist?

185
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Lesson 23: Truth and Validity

1. What does it mean that a syllogism is valid?
2. Can the statements in a valid syllogism be false?
3. Can the statements in an invalid syllogism be true?
4, What is a sound syllogism?

Lesson 24: Testing Syllogisms by Counterexample

1. Does validity depend solely on the form of a syllogism?
2. What is a counterexample of a syllogism?
3. How does a counterexample show a syllogism to be invalid?
4. How many forms of syllogisms are valid, and how many are invalid?

Lesson 25: Distributed Terms

1. What is a distributed term?
2. Which types of statements distribute their subject?
3. Which types of statements distribute their predicate?

Lesson 26: Testing Syllogisms by Rules

1. List the five rules of validity.
2. Which rules depend on how terms are distributed in the statements?
3. Which rules depend on the quality of the statements in a syllogism?
4. Name the fallacy or fallacies associated with each rule.

186

e
 UNIT 3

REVIEW EXERCISES
Students may do these exercises for further review of this unit.

The following sample arguments will be used in all of the additional exercises in
this unit.

a) No true socialist is a millionaire, but some Russians are millionaires. Therefore, some
Russians are not true socialists.
b) All modern high-resolution images are digital pictures, so some photographs from
satellites are modern high-resolution images, since some digital pictures are photo-
graphs from satellites.
¢) Some robots are not programmed humanoids, because some robots are androids, and
all androids are programmed humanoids.
d) All epic poems are works of great artistry. Hence, given that no nursery rhymes are
works of great artistry, no nursery rhymes are epic poems.
No tele-judges are Supreme Court justices, and some tele-judges are not public de-
fenders. Thus, some Supreme Court justices are not public defenders.
No high-school mathematics is advanced particle physics. Consequently, some ad-
vanced algebra must be advanced particle physics, for all advanced algebra is high-
school mathematics.
g) Some secret agents are not arrogant mothers, because some arrogant mothers are
mid-management secretaries, but no mid-management secretaries are secret agents.

h) Some chanting story-tellers are rap singers, so some bards are rap singers, since all
chanting story-tellers are bards.
All football games are sporting events, and all football games are physically exhaust-
ing activities. Clearly, all sporting events are physically exhausting activities.
) Some professional nurses are not licensed medical practitioners. Therefore all gradu-
ates of medical school are licensed medical practitioners, for some graduates of medi-
cal school are professional nurses.

187
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lesson 19

1. Underline the conclusion in each of the sample arguments above.
2. How many of the sample arguments have conclusions as the final sentence?

Additional Exercises for Lesson 20

1. Locate the major term, minor term, and middle term for each of the sample arguments.
Major Term Minor Term Middle Term

2. Arrange the sample arguments into standard form syllogisms.

ae
ae wee SS Pe eT
nnEES SS I

b)

188
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

¢) ee
Oe Be
e BI Sh eer hin

d)

e)

g)

h)

yy

189
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lessons 21 and 22

1. Write out the schemas for the sample arguments.

a) f)

Dekelan
lt pape g)

Oa SN POM St h)

eer
RAL eee ee i)

ESS EES i)

2. Determine their mood and figure.

a) f)

a g)
ee eeoy ee h)
1) aT RT i)
A a “AALS ASA
jl itl j)

3. Write the schemas for each of the following moods and figures, and use those schemas
to then write your own standard-form syllogisms:
All-1

IEO-2

190
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

EAO-3

OAO-4

Additional Exercises for Lesson 23

1. Which of the sample arguments appear to be valid? Circle the corresponding letters:
gc oe Ca ere eee eee

2. Of those, which appear to be sound and which do not? Why:

Additional Exercise for Lesson 24

Three of the sample arguments are valid. Identify them and write counterexamples for
the seven invalid sample arguments.

a)

i seem
eee eee en

191
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

t) one yy et es ene ee

C) met eee

C) eet
ee th ee

eee
8) ma !
ES ee n

h)

j)

Additional Exercises for Lessons 25 and 26

1. Underline the distributed terms in the sample arguments.

a) No true socialist is a millionaire.

Some Russians are millionaires.
. Some Russians are not true socialists.

192
 UNIT THREE: SYLLOGISMS AND VALIDITY

b) All modern high-resolution images are digital pictures.

Some digital pictures are photographs from satellites.
.. Some photographs from satellites are modern high-resolution images.
c) All androids are programmed humanoids.
Some robots are androids.
.. Some robots are not programmed humanoids.
d) All epic poems are works of great artistry.
No nursery rhymes are works of great artistry.
.. No nursery rhymes are epic poems.
e) Some tele-judges are not public defenders.
No tele-judges are Supreme Court justices.
Some Supreme Court justices are not public defenders.
f) No high-school mathematics is advanced particle physics.
All advanced algebra is high-school mathematics.
.. Some advanced algebra is advanced particle physics.
g) Some arrogant mothers are mid-management secretaries.
No mid-management secretaries are secret agents.
.. Some secret agents are not arrogant mothers.

h) Some chanting story-tellers are rap singers.

All chanting story-tellers are bards.
.. Some bards are rap singers.
i) All football games are physically exhausting activities.
All football games are sporting events.
.. All sporting events are physically exhausting activities.
j) Some professional nurses are not licensed medical practitioners.
Some graduates of medical school are professional nurses.
.. All graduates of medical school are licensed medical practitioners.
Determine the formal fallacies made in each of the sample arguments.

a)
b)

193
INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

194
 UNIT 4

ARGUMENTS
IN NORMAL ENGLISH
Contents

Lesson 27: Immediate Inferences

Exercise 26
Exercise 27
Lesson 28: Translating Ordinary Statements
Exercise 28
Lesson 29: Translating Inclusive and Exclusive Statements
Exercise 29
Exercise 30
Lesson 30: Enthymemes
Exercise 31
Exercise 32
Lesson 31: Hypothetical Syllogisms
Exercise 33
Exercise 34
Lesson 32: Establishing Conclusions
Exercise 35
Unit 4 Review Questions
Unit 4 Review Exercises
4
;
7

4
3

bene
so 1 ehey

‘
—“ 9's
Fie “8
>

aa

>
ao ieee : = ~
yh, 7 ‘
, re ‘
a , A. .
: a = ~—

= =~) pe =
artsy
- ‘

é Ura ul _
 ERSS ON RY.

IMMEDIATE
INFERENCES
W: are now able to determine the validity of any standard-form
categorical syllogism. However, most arguments we run into
in daily life are expressed in normal English, rather than the more
stilted categorical form. In order to make the skills we have learned
more practical, we need to consider how to translate arguments in
DEFINITION
normal English into standard syllogisms. We will first look at trans-
An immediate inference
lations resulting from immediate inferences.
is a statement that can be
An immediate inference is a statement that can be inferred directly inferred directly from an-
from another statement. It resembles a syllogism with only one prem- other statement.
ise, and is related to the concepts of implication and equivalence. We
have already mentioned a number of immediate inferences in this text.
For example, from the square of opposition we know that Some S is
P can be immediately inferred from A// S is P by subimplication. We
also learned in the section on logical equivalence that the statements
in the following sets can be immediately inferred from each other:

No Sis P=No PisS

Some S is P = Some P is S DEFINITIONS
The immediate inference that switches the subject and predicate of a The converse of a state-
statement like this is called the converse. The converse is only valid for ment is a statement that
reverses the subject and
E and I statements. A and O statements do not have a valid converse.
predicate. It is only valid
All S is P does not imply that AU P is S. If it did, then the fact that A/ for E and I statements.
women are people would imply that All people are women. Similarly,
The obverse of a statement
Some dogs are not poodles does not mean that Some poodles are not dogs. is a statement of the oppo-
Another type of immediate inference is the obverse. The obverse of site quality with a negated
a statement is obtained by changing the quality of the statement (A// predicate. It is valid for all
changes to No, Some to Some... not, and vice versa) and changing the statements.
predicate to its complement (P to non-P). Each of the four categorical
statements has a valid obverse. They are translated as follows:

197
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

All § is P = No S is non-P.

So All believers are Christians is equivalent to No believers are

non-Christians.

DEFINITION No Sis P=AUl S is non-P.

The complement of a term Thus, No demons are atheists means the same as All demons are
is the set of all terms not non-atheists.
included in the given term.
Thus the complement of Some S is P = Some § is not non-P.
the term P is non-P.
So Some incredible things are possible implies that Some incredible
things are not impossible.
And finally,

Some S is not P = Some S is non-P.

This is the most obvious. Some Americans are not capitalists is

equivalent to Some Americans are non-capitalists.
The third type of immediate inference is called the contraposi-
tive. The contrapositive switches the subject and predicate of A and
O statements, like the converse, but it changes both subject and
predicate of each to their complements. This can be derived from the
other two immediate inferences. Follow the two translations closely:
DEFINITION
The contrapositive of a
All S is P Some S is not P
statement is a statement - by obverse L
that reverses and negates No S is non-P Some S is non-P
both the subject and predi- ar by converse J
cate of the original. It is No non-P is S Some non-P is S
valid for A and O.
1 by obverse L
All non-P is non-S Some non-P is not non-S

Thus the statement All saved people are believers is equivalent to

All non-believers are unsaved people. Similarly (though it is perhaps
more awkward), Some faithful people are not Buddhists translates
into its contrapositive, Some non-Buddhists are not unfaithful people.
Notice that the contrapositive is not valid for E and I statements.
You can prove this by trying to put either type of statement through

198
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

the translation procedure above. After the first obverse, you obtain
statements that have no valid converse.
Now, consider the following argument. Is it valid or invalid?
All non-believers are unsaved people.
No believers are non-Christians.
Therefore, all Christians are saved people.

As it is written, this argument has six terms: saved people, unsaved

people, Christians, non-Christians, believers and non-believers. \t also
looks as if it has a negative premise and an affirmative conclusion.
But in order to analyze it for validity, we need to reduce the number
of terms down to the standard three using the immediate inferences.
The major premise is an A statement. Thus we can take its contra-
KEY POINT
positive and change it into All saved people are believers. The minor
premise can be changed into its obverse, All believers are Christians. Use immediate inferences
to translate arguments
Thus the whole argument becomes
with complementary terms
All saved people are believers. into standard-form syllo-
gisms for analysis.
All believers are Christians.
Therefore, all Christians are saved people.
This argument can now be analyzed by the techniques already
covered. We see that it is an AAA-4 syllogism, which is invalid,
having an illicit minor term.

SUMMARY

Immediate inferences are statements that can be inferred directly

from other statements. There are three main types of equivalent im-
mediate inferences. Converse switches the subject and predicate and
is valid for E and I statements. Obverse changes both the quality of
the statement and the predicate to its complement, and is valid for
all statements. Contrapositive switches the subject and predicate of
the statement and changes both to their complements; it is valid for
A and O statements.

199
 oavgon orion i bie?
Sv U5 2i ae ie: abe
- aoe

ee
Poet Si
anil wil|
_at
: ndsnn ae
Amon oie irpseabard Sha
itesen _ : £9
~
eGfeng: DOWRY, (erred aie
ee salen ad sria.
cowieTb owas tisd- gost Sou
eta ae
a jie BFOD pron neae “

coardlenind) oink da
“pre iB) RD aEvaila
oes ; aa
sage iS sm voonisd Kas
mathe pai i ‘this is the most abs
ares. [Link] Aneeriqnns a
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 26 (22 points)

Write two valid immediate inferences for each of the statements given. Identify the im-
mediate inferences as either converse, obverse, or contrapositive.

1. All things that glitter are gold.

2. No emperors were philosophers.

3. Some prophets are pagans.

4. Some mathematicians are not teachers.

Write statements with the given criteria, which will show that the immediate inference
given is not valid for the given type of statement.
5. A false A statement that has a true converse.

6. A true O statement that has a false converse.

7. A false I statement that has a true contrapositive.

201
 o~

nav
sdbto
ecoe vot oneal saben
HIdH SES oebtis 26 seone
ee

Al ett ae er pe

al
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 27 (31 points)

Translate the following arguments into standard-form categorical syllogisms. Note that
they may not be in proper order. Also, find and identify the one invalid syllogism.
a. Some Christians are Calvinists, but no Christians are unbelievers. Therefore some
Calvinists are believers.

All mumbling is murmuring, so all mumbling is nonsensical, since no murmuring is sensical.

All perfect beings are nonhuman, since all mortals are imperfect, and no humans
are immortals.

. All eighth graders are less than six feet tall, because all poor logicians are non-eighth
graders, and nobody six feet tall or more is a good logician.

Some non-adults are not immature people, but no mature people are impatient peo-
ple. We must conclude that some adults are patient people.

203
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

6. No things that glitter are non-gold, and all gold is expensive. Thus, nothing that glit-
ters is inexpensive.

eee ee
e
ee
eee

204
 LESSON 28

TRANSLATING
ORDINARY STATEMENTS
Cees statements are given in very formal language, but in
everyday arguments they can be expressed in a wide variety of
ways. You have already done some translation of ordinary statements
into categorical form, but many more means of expressing state-
ments need to be considered. KEY POINT
For example, we have already learned that categorical form re- Most arguments you en-
quires verbs to be changed into nouns. Thus the ordinary statement counter will need to be
All roads lead to Rome gets translated into All roads are to-Rome lead- translated into more formal,
ers ot All roads are roads that lead to Rome. Similarly, we have seen precise language in order to
that, for proper categorical form, adjectives must become nouns. be analyzed more easily.
All toads are ugly is not categorical form; it must be translated into
something like A// toads are ugly amphibians.
The assignments have also required you to recognize some synonyms
to the words all, no, and some. The following are some examples:

All: every, any, as many as

No: none, all...not, never
Some: many, most, a few

Note that statements of the form Not all S are P should be trans-
lated Some S are not P, because the contradiction of an A statement
is an O statement. Thus, Not all students are bad means Some students
are not bad people. CAUTION
Try translating the following ordinary statements into categorical
Statements of the form Not
form before reading on: all § are P should be trans-
lated Some S are not P, not
Everybody needs a friend. No. S is P.
Any number two pencil will work.
As many as saw the accident may testify.
None of the songs I heard were copyrighted.

205
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

All of the pianos in that room are not in tune.

Toddlers never study calculus.
Many soldiers visited the memorial.
Most people like ice cream.
A few people like spinach.
Not all soldiers fight on the front lines.

We will now identify some additional statements in ordinary

English which require more careful translation.

KEY POINT 1. Singular statements. Statements often refer to a single per-

Singular statements are best
son or thing. When they do, they are usually best translated as
translated as universals. universals. Thus they would be changed like this:

John is a mailman.
All John is a mailman.

Singular statements that are denials are translated in the same

way. For example:

You are not my people.

No you are my people.

Again, while this may sound awkward, it will allow us to analyze

arguments more easily.

2. Indefinite statements. Some statements look very similar to

singular statements, but the context requires them to be translated
differently. For example, consider the sentence
KEY POINT
Dogs ate my homework.
Indefinite statements may
be translated as universals This statement should not be translated All dogs were eaters of my
or particulars, depending homework, since no doubt only a few dogs were involved. This is
on the statement’s meaning. better changed to

Some dogs were eaters of my homework.

206
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Translating indefinite statements requires the student to think

about the meaning of the statements in the argument. Consider this
argument:

Cats are mammals.

Cats sang outside my window.
Therefore mammals sang outside my window.

The first statement should be translated into a universal, A// cats

are mammals. The second, however, should be translated into the
particular Some cats were outside-my-window singers. How would you
translate the conclusion?

KEY POINT
3. Hypothetical statements. Many statements use if... then...
language. We will consider this in more detail in a later section, but Hypothetical statements
for now we recognize that such statements can be translated into should be translated as
universals.
universals, such as

Tfyou like chocolate, you will love this cake.

All chocolate likers will be lovers of this cake.

Similarly, negative hypotheticals can be translated into E statements:

Tfits a hard test then I wont pass.

No hard test is a test I will pass.

We will practice with these before we look at more difficult

translations.
SUMMARY

Arguments with statements in normal English must first be translated

into categorical form in order to be examined. This section has consid-
ered the translation of singular, indefinite, and hypothetical statements.

207
 weaned: xmabai |
Aas oto aole

Pet!
0 cel
ol bILeta

‘eget peter ——

varepmine|iForadioed
aa oi! i
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 28 (20 points)

Translate the following statements in normal English into standard categorical form.
iy God is good.

. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

. Ifyou sin then you are a lawbreaker.

. Not everybody will come.

. Asoft answer turns away wrath.

. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Many antichrists have come.

. I believe.

. The Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

10. The love of most will grow cold.

209
 bow Ai eens, ghiwolle
-
= - ws

<=
— ety fie Erma tae
——
 ERS SON«29

TRANSLATING INCLUSIVE
& EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS
here are two more broad types of statements in ordinary English
that we need to learn how to translate into standard form: state-
ments that employ what we might call inclusives and exclusives. Let
us examine these further.

1. Inclusives. Some statements employ what we might call “inclu-

sive” words. The words in this very general category, often relative
pronouns and adverbs, all have the function of including a broad,
unspecified range of things (or times) in the meaning of the sentence.
Examples are words such as whoever, whatever, wherever, whenever,
DEFINITION
however, always, never, and other similar words. We might also call
For our purposes, an in-
them “ever-words.” Let’s look at some examples.
clusive is a word, often a
First, consider how you would translate this sentence: relative pronoun or adverb,
that refers to a broad range
You should eat whatever your mother feeds you. of things or times.

The function of the word whatever here is to include every type

of food your mother might feed you, and so it is best translated “all
things.” The words following the inclusive word usually make up
the subject; the remainder of the statement becomes the predicate,
as the following translation shows:

You should eat whatever your mother feeds you.

All things your mother feeds you are things you should eat. KEY POINT
The words following the
Consider this use of the inclusive word whenever: inclusive usually make up
the subject.
Whenever two or more ofyou are gathered in my name,
there I shall be in the midst ofyou.

211
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Depending on the rest of the argument, this can be translated in

terms of time or place. We can translate it

All times that two or more ofyou are gathered in my name

are times thatIwill be in the midst ofyou.

You need to be very careful with time inclusives such as always.

Sometimes the translation is easy:

The poor you will always have with you.

All times are times the poor will be with you.
CAUTION But consider the translation of this statement:
Some inclusive and exclu-
sive time-words are tricky Joe always wins at chess.
to translate correctly. Take
care translating always This should not be translated A// times are times Joe wins at chess, be-
and never. cause sometimes Joe is not playing chess. It is best translated this way:

All times Joe plays chess are times Joe wins at chess.

Never should be treated similarly. Note that though it is negative,

it still refers inclusively to all times—just as an E statement distrib-
utes its terms.
Sometimes shorter versions of “ever-words” are used. They should
be translated in the same way as their longer counterparts. In this
example, the word where acts like the word wherever.

I will go where you go.

All places you go are places I will go.

Then, notice that even the word that can be used as an inclusive.
Take this statement, for example:

Alls well that ends well.

Here, the word that has the same function as whatever, so this is
best translated

All things that end well are things that are well.

212
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

2. Exclusives. Words that exclude—such as only, unless, and ex-

cept—tequire special attention as well. Exclusives set boundaries by
explicitly referring to a limited class of things. Though they may
seem opposite to inclusives, they are still usually translated as univer-
sals, often affirmative. We will consider several examples to clarify.
DEFINITION
First, consider this statement:
For our purposes, exclu-
Only the good die young. stves are words that set
boundaries, referring only
What is the categorical form of this statement? Initially, you may to a limited class of things.
want to translate it A// good people are people who die young. But that
is not the meaning of the statement, any more than Only women are
mothers means All women are mothers. The statement is really this one:

All people who die young are good people.

The words nobody but, nothing but, and so on are all translated in
this same way. For example:

Nobody but the Spartans could fight like that.

All people who could fight like that are the Spartans.

Now consider this statement:

KEY POINT
The plants will die unless you water them.
The words following an ex-
This does not mean that A// the plants you water are plants that do clusive often make up the
not die. The above statement could still be true, but if you faithfully predicate.
water the plant, it will still eventually die. Rather, the statement
should become

All the plants you do not water are the plants that die.

Or, by the contrapositive,

All the plants that do not die are the plants you water.

Finally, the word except must be considered. Statements that em-

ploy except often contain two independent statements, which should
both be considered. For example:

215
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Everyone was invited to the clubhouse except sisters.

This clearly includes the statement Al// non-sisters were clubhouse-

KEY POINT
invited people, but it just as clearly includes the meaning of No sisters
Statements that use except were clubhouse-invited people. Which translation you should use de-
can contain two indepen-
pends on how the statement is used in the argument.
dent statements.
Obviously, the translation of arguments that use the types of
statements in these last two sections requires careful thought and
practice. Often, the best approach is simply to ask, “What does
this statement really mean?” If the meaning can be correctly carried
across into the statements in categorical form, then the arguments
can be examined for validity.
CAUTION
Some statements in ordi-
nary English may be trans-
lated into more than one
categorical statement.

SUMMARY

Arguments with statements in normal English must first be trans-

lated into categorical form in order to be examined. This section has
considered the translations of statements that employ inclusive and
exclusive statements, which are generally translated using universals.

214
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 29 (20 points)

Translate the following statements in normal English into standard categorical form.
i. Wherever you go, there you are.

. You may prepare it however you like.

. Unless you repent, you too will perish.

. He never did anything wrong.

. You will reap what you sow.

. He gets sick whenever he drinks milk.

Righteousness is found only in the Lord.

. God does whatever He pleases.

You always hurt the one you love.

10. Nobody leaves except those who have finished.

215
eahenmniiemta=eaeen
ede ae ee oad
. =
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 30 (20 points)

Translate the following arguments into standard categorical form.
1. Happy is the land that has no history, and King Frank’s land has no history. We must
conclude that King Frank’s land is happy.

2. None but the wise are truly happy, so Solomon was happy, since he was so wise.

3. Some people are not Christ’s disciples, for whoever turns away cannot be His disciple,
and many people turn away.

4. All sciences except logic study the tangible, and chemistry is not logic. Thus, chem-
istry is a study of the tangible.

5. Write a counterexample to the one invalid argument in this exercise.

pAW
 ii eee toe

Si fae te rc geeel th iene il prenatal

 LESSON 30

ENTHYMEMES

e have come a long way toward being able to analyze argu-

ments in normal English. Still, most of the arguments that you
come across in daily life do not explicitly state all of the premises, and
some even leave the conclusion unstated. Arguments in which a state-
ment is left assumed are called enthymemes. We must now consider
DEFINITIONS
how to change enthymemes into complete, standard-form syllogisms.
We will work through some examples step-by-step. Here is an An enthymeme is an argu-
ment in which a statement
argument you might hear in everyday conversation:
is unstated and assumed.
Specifically, it is a syl-
You arent invited to the party, because only eighth-graders logism with one assumed
are invited. statement.

First, we locate the conclusion. In this argument, the conclusion

is the first statement, You aren't invited to the party. Translating this
into categorical form gives us

No you are invited persons.

Second, consider the other statement, Only eighth-graders are in-

vited. If we put this in standard form we obtain

All invited persons are eighth-graders.

We see that this has the major term, invited persons, so it is the
major premise. Put this into proper order, and leave a space for the
missing premise:

All invited persons are eighth-graders.

( )
. No you are invited persons.

IN)
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

The missing premise must contain the terms that have been
used only once, in this case you and eighth-graders. If the person is
arguing validly, the missing premise must also be an E statement.
(We know this because of the rules for validity.) Since an E state-
CAUTION ment is equivalent to its converse, it doesn’t matter what order the
Several different state- terms are placed in. Thus the missing premise could be No you are
ments may fit as the as- eighth-graders, and the complete syllogism would then be
sumed statement in an
enthymeme. To fairly All invited persons are eighth-graders.
evaluate it, assume it is (No you are eighth-graders.)
valid and choose possible . No you are invited persons.
statements accordingly.
The enthymeme has thus been translated into categorical form,
with the assumed premise set in parentheses. It is an AEE-2 syl-
logism. We found the missing premise by considering which terms
were used only once in the other statements, and by considering
what the quality of the statement had to be, assuming the person
was arguing validly.
Consider another example, this time from the Bible. In Matthew
27:4 Judas says:
FURTHER STUDY

An argument that has I have sinned, for I have betrayed innocent blood.
more than two premises is
called a sorites. These can What was Judas assuming in this enthymeme? First, we put the
be analyzed for validity conclusion, / have sinned, into categorical form:
by breaking them down
into syllogisms, with the All I am a sinner.
conclusion of one syllogism
becoming the premise of The given premise contains the minor term J, so it is the minor
another until the conclusion premise. We put that into categorical form and obtain:
is reached. Lewis Carroll,
the author of Alice in Won- All I am an innocent-blood betrayer.
derland and other stories,
describes a unique method What is the assumed premise? It is the major premise, and must
of analyzing sorites, with contain both the middle term innocent-blood betrayer and the major
many examples, in his book
term sinner. Now, we should assume that he was arguing validly,
Symbolic Logic (available
bound together with Car- if we can (sometimes no valid syllogism is possible). If so, the only
roll’s Game ofLogic from valid syllogism that ends in a universal affirmative is AAA-1. Thus
Dover Publications). the complete argument is

220
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

(All innocent-blood betrayers are sinners.)

All I am an innocent-blood betrayer.
“. ALT am a sinner.

One more example should be sufficient, again from the Bible

(Matt. 10:40). In this enthymeme the conclusion is left assumed:

He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me

receives the one who sent me.

What does Jesus leave us to conclude? If we place the premises in

categorical form, and in the proper order, we obtain CAUTION
Remember that the as-
All receivers of me are receivers of the one who sent me.
sumed statement in an
All receivers ofyou are receivers of me. enthymeme might be the
(.. ) conclusion.

Obviously, Jesus wishes us to conclude that He who receives you

receives the one who sent me. We can translate this into proper form
and place it in the syllogism, and we obtain this as the final product:

All receivers of me are receivers of the one who sent me.

All receivers ofyou are receivers of me.
(.. All receivers ofyou are receivers ofthe one who sent me.)

SUMMARY

Many arguments in daily life are expressed as enthymemes. An en-

thymeme is a syllogism in which one statement is left assumed. The
assumed statement can be determined by considering which terms
were used only once in the given statements, then considering the
form of the assumed statement that would make the syllogism valid,
if possible.

pal
 ee SinesanEwy

ll soca AONE eti

Si AOR Ta ES RUE)
ieee
2 aera — aha

woes tye> ANTS

eS
a de eae 3p ch.
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 31 (25 points)

Translate the following enthymemes into standard-form syllogisms. Assume the en-
thymeme is valid, and place parentheses around the assumed statement. Number 5 as-
sumes the conclusion.

1. Tomorrow is not Tuesday, therefore tomorrow we will not have a test.

2. No enthymemes are complete, so some arguments are incomplete.

3. Some young people are not rebels, since not everyone rebels as a teenager.

4. Most Russians are not capitalists, because communists are not capitalists.

5. God does whatever He pleases, and He is pleased to save sinners. So....

225
 (cies 20) té9
ine antinalleal
184 nominass 5 soslq bas bile

olviens xebesuk ton i

ag ol gt ee
——

i Pao 06 snthietst
ant Bihe OF “ralqenen
2
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 32 (25 points)

Repeat the above exercise using these enthymemes, all taken from Scripture.
1. “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath” (John 9:16).

2. “I will fear no evil, for you are with me” (Psalm 23:4).

3. “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory . . . for you created all things”
(Rev. 4:11).

4. “The promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace” (Rom. 4:16).

5. “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in
heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt. 12:49—50).

22)
 et ur sustl)
.% Bae
= . i os - on >i a
ast FOr boc Var ton 2 nl
ra
\
ye,
~
ne
— nea
r A agi
i le
n tins
g tents lich

St eh ee le ON
alge ory

ay
:
<
7 ma
i

eb
et
4. he ;
: ° 2
™~
, ei a
-
s
.
¥
‘

;
;
~~
af

{
" —

Se

=
 LESSONS

HYPOTHETICAL
SYLLOGISMS
A: mentioned earlier, many arguments in normal English are given
in the form of hypotheticals, statements using if... then. . . lan-
guage. At that time we learned that the statements could be translated
into universal categorical statements (A or E), and the argument then
treated like other categorical syllogisms. But hypothetical syllogisms
DEFINITION
can also be examined in a manner different from categorical syllogisms.
A hypothetical is a state-
First, we will consider what may be called pure hypothetical syllo-
ment that affirms an out-
gisms. This form of argument employs only hypotheticals, as follows: come based on a condition.
It has the form /fP then Q.
If P then Q.
If Q then R.
Therefore, ifP then R.

We can use the symbol > for if. . . then. When we do, the whole
argument is symbolized like this:

P>Q.
Qak
i gaia DEFINITION
A pure hypothetical syl-
This is a valid argument, which, in fact, could be translated into an logism is an argument
AAA-1 categorical syllogism. Here is an example of a valid, pure that uses only hypothetical
hypothetical syllogism: statements.

If I study, then I will get good grades.

If Iget good grades, then my parents will be pleased.
Therefore, ifI study then my parents will be pleased.

We see that hypothetical statements combine two categorical

statements into one new jf. . . then statement. The categorical state-
ment after the ifis called the antecedent, usually abbreviated P.

Dade
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

The statement after the then is called the consequent, abbreviated

Q. The antecedent of the above conclusion is / study, and the conse-
quent is My parents will be pleased.
Pure hypothetical syllogisms can also be invalid. Consider this
argument:
DEFINITION
Ifyou are a woman, then you are a human.
The antecedent of a hy- Ifyou are a man, then you are a human.
pothetical statement is the
Therefore, ifyou are a woman, then you are a man.
condition, the part follow-
ing the “if? The consequent
The argument follows this form
is the result of the condition,
the part after the “then.”
IfP then Q PaO
IfR then Q RD>Q
Therefore, if P then R - bok

Some syllogisms combine hypothetical and categorical statements.

These are called mixed hypothetical syllogisms. We will consider
two valid and two invalid forms of mixed hypothetical syllogisms.
The first form we will consider is called modus ponens. It looks
like this:

IfP then Q
vi
DEFINITION Therefore, Q
A mixed hypothetical syl- If we put terms from real life into the argument, we could obtain this:
logism is an argument that
uses both hypothetical and IfI study, then I will get good grades.
categorical statements. I study.
Therefore, I will get good grades.

You can see that the first statement is a hypothetical statement,

and the second is a categorical statement. If this is expressed with
symbols only, we can clearly see the form of modus ponens:

Heme)
fe
me!

228
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Here is another example of modus ponens:

Ifsomething has a complex design, then it has a designer.

KEY POINT
Living cells have a complex design.
Therefore, living cells have a designer. Learn the two basic, valid,
mixed hypothetical syl-
The second type of argument is called modus tollens. The form logisms: modus ponens and
modus tollens.
of argument is:

If P then Q
Not Q
Therefore, not P

With the same real terms we used above, the argument would be:

IfI study, then I will get good grades.

I did not get good grades.
Therefore, I did not study.

In symbols, modus tollens would thus be:

P=
pics
~P FURTHER STUDY
Though they may be
Here is a second example of modus tollens: translated into categorical
syllogisms, hypothetical
Ifa school is classical, then logic is taught in that school. syllogisms (as they are dealt
Logic is not taught in the public school. with in this lesson) are more
Therefore, the public school is not classical. properly considered under
propositional logic, rather
There are also two fallacies that take a similar form to the ar- than categorical. You can
see this in the fact that the
guments presented above. The first is the fallacy of affirming the
letters P and Q represent
consequent, so named because the second premise affirms the con- whole propositions, rather
sequent of the hypothetical statement. This is how it looks: than categories or terms.
The next book in this series,
IfP then Q PSO Intermediate Logic: Master-
Q Q ing Propositional Arguments,
Therefore, P cat bs deals more fully with this
branch of reasoning.

Ji,
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

With terms from the real world inserted, we see a form of invalid
argument which is all too familiar:

IfI study, then I will get good grades.

I got good grades.
DEFINITION
Therefore, I studied.
Learn the two basic, zn- This is what is called a non sequitur, meaning “it does not follow.”
valid, mixed hypothetical The student may have gotten good grades some other way—cheat-
syllogisms: affirming the
ing, for example. The initial statement does not say that studying is
consequent and denying
the antecedent.
the only way to good grades. There is therefore no basis for the con-
clusion that studying must have been the way they were obtained.
Here is a clearer counterexample:

Ifyou were a gorilla, then you would have two legs.

You have two legs.
Therefore, you must be a gorilla.
KEY POINT You can see that the premises are true, but the conclusion is false.
‘The Latin phrase non se- Thus affirming the consequent is invalid.
quitur means “it does not The other fallacy is called denying the antecedent, because the an-
follow’; i.e., that an argu- tecedent of the hypothetical statement is denied in the second premise.
ment is invalid.
If P then Q lies)
Not P ~P
Therefore, notQ .. ~Q

And the real life example is

IfI study, then I will get good grades.

I did not study.
Therefore, I will not get good grades.

This is also a non sequitur. You might not study but still luck out
and get good grades. Consider this more clear counterexample:

Ifyou were a gorilla, then you would have two legs.

You are not a gorilla.
Therefore, you do not have two legs.

230
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

This clearly demonstrates that denying the antecedent is invalid.

Here is a summary of the mixed hypothetical syllogisms:

Modus Ponens Modus Tollens

PaQ PaQ
VALID P cO

ee) , ~P

Affirming the Denying the

Consequent Antecedent
INVALID -| BOQ Rao.
Q ~P
ced 8)

SUMMARY

Hypothetical syllogisms are very common arguments in normal

English. Pure hypothetical syllogisms employ only #f. . . then state-
ments. Mixed hypothetical syllogisms employ hypotheticals and
categoricals. There are two valid forms of mixed hypothetical syllo-
gisms: modus ponens and modus tollens. There are also two invalid
forms: afirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.

2o1
 Ree eta 6 (2 Sie PA a os SAT OE

% a abe iain
i ah peewee Dakin alt to creme wal wal

— FSA Mano

i | ‘emis | = | GLIA
~~

if:does nO
. Me sx
SOT Quay 4 oe bars SaRR" ee
. eal~
’ Esests r Ss
Se
‘7 aA
Loe) beac its. ve Di, >

ie i tose a
rae
= iy. Tesen
sie
the was
‘ 188
they
a oe ora WV
Were Gees
:

: eS Se cs =
a 4 iis eer fave 24 -
cs
er : afm
: a x . i > d ~~ vy. +t 7? qi

ae
c a.
2
ee
Pia -
hue

SA
PO,
- nee :
Aho
*
ce
-
‘(2
'
71 EPO PN,eid

Som nade
=
me 2)

“hs : er. iG% aaa lia ee ght Bar? shee Panta ia

hits, re l
by q
Leite:
awe exe! 6 STG 3% orb t 2totes
-<bom bee ea
sniog sbort
a ; | {irs 560i bulsSS ee cunt
Nore
\ | (ere

+iPres é hs
§? * sl tf

a ed chereaklife te hae

oe ee =m 2 , "Big then it ae
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 33 (20 points)

Analyze each of the following arguments and write down its form in the blank pro-
vided: pure hypothetical, modus ponens, modus tollens, affirming the consequent, or deny-
ing the antecedent.
I. If you are lazy, then you will be poor. Henry is
poor, and it follows that he is therefore lazy.
. The Bible teaches that if a man is generous, then he
will prosper. We know that Mike is not generous,
and therefore he cannot prosper.

. If you speak too much, sin will not be absent. If sin

is not absent, then it is present. Thus if you speak
too much, sin is present.

. Ifa ministry is of God, then it will succeed. The

Mormon church is successful. We can conclude that
it is blessed by God.
. If you are kind to the poor, then you are lending to
to the Lord. Paul is kind to the poor. He is therefore
lending to the Lord.

. If you visit your neighbor too much he will get sick

of you. My neighbor is not sick of me, so I don’t
think I visit too much.
. Ifyou don’t answer a fool according to his folly, then
he will think that he is wise. Sharon did not answer
him according to his folly. He must think he is wise.
. Ifa country is rebellious, it has many rulers.
Argentina has had many rulers; it must be a
rebellious country.
. Ifa man is lawless, even his prayers are detestable.
Larry is not at all a lawless man. So his prayers must
not be detestable.

Continued on next page.

233
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

10. “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” “I am

willing,” Jesus said. “Be clean.”

11. If recycling were necessary, then it would be

profitable. Recycling is not yet profitable. So it must
not be necessary.
[Link] a man gives gifts, then everyone wants to be his
friend. Everyone wants to be Gordon’s friend.
Gordon must give out a lot of gifts.

13. If they receive you they receive me. If they receive

me, then they receive Him who sent me. So if they
receive you, they receive Him who sent me.

14. If I kill you, then you will die. I promise that I will
never kill you. Therefore, you will never die!
15. If you flog a mocker, then the simple will learn
prudence. We don’t flog mockers. That must be why
we have so many imprudent people.
16. If you are rich, then many will want to be your
friend. No one wants to be Jessica’s friend. She
must not be rich.
17. If you honor the Lord with your wealth, then He
will bless you greatly. Mr. Spence has always
honored the Lord this way. He will be blessed.
18. If you fear the Lord, then you will love wisdom. A
man who hates wisdom must not fear the Lord.
19. If you are a Christian, then you will read your
Bible. I know a man who reads the Bible. He must
be a Christian.

[Link] they had belonged to us, they would have

remained with us. But they went out from us. This
showed that they did not belong to us.

234
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 34 (16 points)

Analyze the following paragraph. Separate the various arguments (there are four), and
determine whether they are valid or not. Identify each argument by name.
If Paul went to Ephesus, then he wouldn’t write the Ephesians a letter. But
he did write them a letter, which means that he didn’t go to Ephesus. But if
Paul didn’t go to Ephesus, then he would not have known the people there.
We know, however, that Paul did go to Ephesus, therefore he did know
the people there. If he knew the people in Ephesus, then he would have
known the saints in Colossae too. But we know that he did not know the
Christians in Colossae, which means that he didn’t know the Ephesians. If
Paul didn’t know the Ephesians, then he would have written them a letter.
He wrote them a letter, and this proves that he did not know them.
1.

ne ae eg ee Bog BN Ip Pio Eaige

§
be

Name Re eites: See SNe ee rate ee ns Dee age oe 2 Soe AS Valid?

3.

Names ee
7 I en = Valid?

4.

iMamidhal you wanted co prove eis claim. im depart. Lhe Malide

23)
 FO! GL IRS © etseins
rie 1 ry La
y Ons
“.

m0 ‘Piniog ot) bE saiziox

i

197Fg EER con

on0> Bilary sie yids eeltarhves

ow Tebhiow i 1Saf 42 rnd oi ow use‘

tO Aaa oct ty: ph 2c Ht Al chvv gestoi eae otitwd ?
We ek Meat wee 33% ABAyeventigd o; ogtak al
py gee rod oY oy bib lanl sibt asvewod =<
ort at aie
“ in Se tg ont bea ad t mods ol ,
i oct je

’ 4? we ; eva b
etn dsete 10M
hice.
bee YOU wilt SetLpaveni
Meine fleetee
t
CTC Org, Fad,

Tigh Li ohlag
Fy a eee =

Me
a
- J bl

—_
e

hf
:

*
*, >
», ia =
. =
 EbSSON 32

ESTABLISHING
CONCLUSIONS
p to this point this text has concentrated on analysis—deter-
mining the validity or invalidity of existing arguments. This
is in keeping with what Dorothy Sayers states in her essay on clas- KEY POINT
sical education, “The Lost Tools of Learning.” She writes, “Indeed,
You can use logical tech-
the practical utility of Formal Logic today lies not so much in the niques to construct syl-
establishment of positive conclusions as in the prompt detection and logisms as well as analyze
exposure of invalid inference.” them.
Still, there is a value in being able to establish positive conclusions,
for example, when we need to prove the resolution in a debate. And
now we have all the tools we need in order to do this. We can take a
given statement, place it as the conclusion of an argument, and find a
valid argument form that could be used to establish that conclusion.
As you may have discovered by now, there are twenty-four valid
argument forms. Each figure has six valid moods, as follows:

AAA-1 AEE-2 AAI-3 AAI-4

KEY POINT
AAF-1 AEO-2 AII-3 AEE-4
AIL-1 AOC? EAO-3 AEO-4 There are 24 valid forms of
EAE-1 EAE-2 EIO-3 EAO-4 syllogisms—six moods for
each of the four figures.
EAO-1 EAO-2 IAI-3 EIO-4
EIO-1 EIO-2 OAO-3 IAI-4

Any of these forms may be used to establish a valid conclusion.

Take, for example, the claim that “Angels have limited knowledge.”
Imagine that you wanted to prove this claim in debate. The follow-
ing procedure could be followed:

1. Put the statement to be established into categorical form. The

given statement would become something like this: All angels are

237.
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

beings with limited knowledge. This is a universal affirmative, or an

A statement.

2. Find a valid argument form (mood and figure) which has that
HISTORY
type of statement as the conclusion. The only argument form that
As logic developed as a sci- has an A statement as a conclusion is AAA-1, so we must use this
ence, various logicians rec- form for our argument.
ognized different syllogism
forms as valid. In his Prior
3. Place the statement as the conclusion of the selected form of
Analytics, Aristotle identified
16 valid forms, omitting syllogism, and fill in the known terms, leaving the middle term
AAI-1, EAO-1, AEO-2, blank. The argument would then look something like this (note
EAO-2, AAI-4, AEE-4, that it is in AAA-I form, and the conclusion is in categorical form
AEO-4, and IAI-4. Later,
from step 1):
AAI-4, AEE-4, and IAI-4
were recognized as valid.
Peter of Spain named the All are beings with limited knowledge.
19 valid forms using vowels All angels are
to represent the correspond- Therefore, all angels are bane with limited knowledge.
ing mood (.g., AAA-1 was
named Barbara, OAO-3 was
named Bocardo). Interest-
4. Find a middle term that makes the premises true, thus com-
ingly, the five remaining pleting the argument. What is something that all angels are, and
rejected forms can be shown at the same time is a being that has limited knowledge? It could be
to be equivalent to AAI-4 argued that, since only God has unlimited knowledge, then any
(called Bramantip). Cassio-
being which is not God—that is, any created being—has limited
dorus Senator added AAI-1
to the list of valid forms. knowledge. And since all angels are created beings, the term “created
Other logicians, up to and being” works as our middle term. So our final argument is
including Isaac Watts, called
the fourth figure “useless,” All created beings are beings with limited knowledge.
and thus ended up with
All angels are created beings.
only 14 valid forms. Finally,
many modern logicians re- Therefore, all angels are beings with limited knowledge.
ject the nine forms of mood
and figure that have univer- Let’s work through another example. Suppose you wanted to
sal premises and a particular prove the following resolution: “Not all killing of another person is
conclusion. The 24 forms
murder.” Our first step is to put the statement into categorical form,
given here as valid can be
shown to be derived (using e.g., Some killing ofa person is not murder. Write that down. This is
the immediate inferences) an O statement, and there are many valid syllogism forms that have
from four basic forms: AAA- that type of statement as their conclusion. Consequently, we might
1, AII-1, AAI-3, and AAI-4.

238
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

find it easier to jump to the next step and consider a middle term
that might work, in this case, a killing that is not murder.
What type of killing is not murder? Well, murder is defined as
unlawful killing, so we need to think of an example of killing that
is not unlawful. What about the lawful execution of a criminal?
With this in mind, we must think of true statements that connect
the execution of a criminal to the two terms in the conclusion: the
killing of a person, and murder. Clearly, every execution of a crimi-
nal is the killing of a person, and at least some executions are not
murder. This gives us an O statement as the major premise, Some
executions are not murder (we know it’s the major premise because
it has the major term: murder), and an A statement as the minor
premise, All executions are the killing of a person. This gives us the
following argument:

Some executions are not murder.

All executions are the killing ofa person.
Therefore, some killing ofa person is not murder.

This is an OAO-3, which is a valid form. Thus, as long as the

premises are both true, we have an argument that establishes the
desired conclusion.

SUMMARY

To establish the truth of a statement, we follow this procedure: 1)

Put the statement into categorical form. 2) Find a valid argument
form that has that type of statement as a conclusion. 3) Place the
statement as the conclusion of the selected form of syllogism, and
fill in the known terms. Then 4) find a middle term that makes the
premises both true and completes the argument. The steps need not
be followed in this exact order.

Yay
 qeilishe ees eid al alrow id
oF Yee Aabe ei yerillig to.
tenes “wv eitdarcoltpass bgt
ma é . orccboagals thoda heel
‘pk, penainge
7:
oe ke ot lenimai [Link]
Okie po yas “id piu teal Rees
“eh i oe: ottue)ede tne agsf
toag
AOR ae senna sep ese ioaig
Perens ot ‘atteetibyola}s |

peace0
ae pts
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Exercise 35 (40 points)

Develop sound syllogisms that establish the given statements as conclusions, using the
suggested mood and figure in parentheses.
1. Everyone in heaven is happy. (AAA-1)

2. Bats aren't bugs. (EAE-2)

3. Many spirits are demons. (IAI-3)

4. Some people will not be saved. (EIO-2)

For the following problems, develop sound syllogisms that establish the given statements
as conclusions, using whatever syllogism form you like. (4 each)
5. Socrates is mortal.

Continued on next page.

241
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

6. Whoever turns away from Christ cannot be his disciple.

7. Some teachers are fathers.

8. Not all roads lead to Rome.

9. Logic is an art.

10. Some problems are not hard to solve.

242
 UNIT 4

REVIEW QUESTIONS
Answers can be found in the lesson under which the questions are listed.

Lesson 27: Immediate Inferences

What is an immediate inference?
What are the three types of immediate inference that result in equivalent statements?
How is the converse of a statement produced?
How is the obverse of a statement produced?
How is the contrapositive of a statement produced?
Which immediate inferences are valid for each of the four types of categorical statements?
ie
re
SeHow can the contrapositive of a statement be derived using obverse and converse?

Lesson 28: Translating Ordinary Statements

1. What is a singular statement?
a When translating singular statements into categorical form, what quantity should
the translation probably have?
What is an indefinite statement?
What needs to be considered in translating indefinite statements into categorical form?
What is a hypothetical statement?
How are hypothetical statements translated into categorical form?
pees

Lesson 29: Translating Inclusive and Exclusive Statements

1, List several inclusives or “ever-words.”
Z How should the following words be translated: whoever, whatever, wherever, when-
ever, however, always, never?
What are exclusives?
Give examples of statements using only, unless, and except along with their translations.

Lesson 30: Enthymemes

1. What is an enthymeme?

243
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2.. When determining the missing statement in an enthymeme, what must be assumed
about the enthymeme’s validity?

Lesson 31: Hypothetical Syllogisms

. What is the difference between pure and mixed hypothetical syllogisms?
. What are the two valid forms of mixed hypothetical syllogisms?
What are the two invalid forms?
What does non sequitur mean?
. How does modus ponens differ from affirming the consequent?
. How does modus tollens differ from denying the antecedent?
RWN
AW

Lesson 32: Establishing Conclusions

1. How many valid moods exist for each of the four figures?
2. What is the general procedure for establishing the truth of a given statement?
3. Does that procedure need to be followed strictly?

244 .
 UNIT 4

REVIEW EXERCISES
Students may do these exercises for further review of this unit.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 27

1. The immediate inferences learned in this lesson are species of what genus? Expand
the “relationships between statements” genus and species chart to include converse,
obverse, and contrapositive.

2. The converse is the only immediate inference that does not use the complement.
What is unique about the obverse? the contrapositive?

3. Give an example of a false E statement that has a true contrapositive.

245
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Write two equivalent immediate inferences for each of the following statements.
4, All exothermic reactions are energy releasers.

5. No large democracy is an effective government.

6. Some pagan myths are profitable reading.

7. Some friendly neighbors are not Christians.

8. All impossible events are improbable events.

9. No penguins are non-swimmers.

10. Some exercises are unhealthy activities. "

11. Some defendants are not nonresponsive witnesses.

246
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Translate the following arguments into standard-form categorical syllogisms, and deter-
mine their validity.
[Link] fantasy is non-fiction. Thus, much fiction is interesting stuff, for no uninteresting
stuff is fantasy.

13. All non-Olets are progressive wardens, because all obstructionists are non-progressive
wardens, and no Olets are non-obstructionists.

14. No dinosaurs were mammals, but most non-apatosaurs were non-mammals. Therefore,
many dinosaurs were not apatosaurs.

15. Some good sleepers are non-pacifists, for snipers are never pacifists, but a few good
sleepers are not non-snipers.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 28

Translate the following statements into standard categorical form.
1. Paris is beautiful in the springtime.

247
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2. Scotty is not a miracle worker.

3. Elephant bellows can travel six miles.

4. Gangsters do not obey the law of the land.

5. If Satan casts out Satan, then his kingdom cannot stand.

6. You could be a musician if you could make sounds loud or mellow.

Translate the following arguments into standard categorical syllogisms, and determine
their validity.
7. Toddlers never study calculus. So Sammy is not a calculus student, since he is still
a toddler.

8. Some of the days in Genesis chapter one are not ordinary days, because ordinary
days are caused by the sun, and not all of the days in Genesis chapter one were
caused by the sun.

9. Children were singing in the park, and anyone who sings in the park entertains me.
Therefore, some children entertained me.

248
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

10. If you don’t have a brain then you can’t talk. But the scarecrow could talk. So he must
have had a brain.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 29

Translate the following arguments into standard categorical syllogisms, and determine
their validity.
1. Whatever is undeserved is unjust. Therefore, giving extra credit is not just, since giv-
ing extra credit is undeserved.

2. The boy squeals whenever he hears that song, and once during church he heard that
song. So once during church he squealed.

3. Rocks are not food, because only food can be digested, and rocks are indigestible.

4. The boys will dunk whoever gets too close to the pool. So some people won't get
dunked, since some people won't get too close to the pool.

249
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

5. Allah is an idol, for anything that is worshiped is an idol except for the true God, and
Allah is a false god that is worshiped.

6. You may eat whichever piece you like. You would like the biggest piece. So you may
eat the biggest piece.

7. He wins the game unless he makes a mistake. Some times he doesn’t make a mistake
are still not perfect games. Thus, not every time he wins is a perfect game.

8. This form of treachery shall never again endanger us, because this form of treachery
we will always fight, and nothing we continue to fight will endanger us.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 30

Translate the following enthymemes into standard categorical syllogisms. Put the assumed
statement in parentheses (note that one of the enthymemes assumes the conclusion).
1. Enoch was not found, because God had translated him.

250
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

2. The Bible alone is God’s Word. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is not God’s Word.

3. Anyone who claims to forgive sins is claiming to be God, and Jesus claimed to
forgive sins.

4. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

5. You area teacher who has come from God, for no one could perform the miraculous
signs you are doing if God were not with him.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 31

Consider this hypothetical statement: “If you heed instruction then you will prosper.”
1. What is the antecedent? What is the consequent?

Antecedent:
Consequent:
2. Use this statement as the first premise to construct a modus ponens.

251
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

3.. Use this statement as the first premise to construct a modus tollens.

Identify the form of the following hypothetical syllogisms. Your options are pure hypo-
thetical syllogism (valid or invalid), modus ponens, modus tollens, affirming the consequent,
denying the antecedent.
4. Ifanyone is sick, then he should pray. Joseph is not sick, so Joseph does not need to pray.

5. If there is no vision, then the people perish. We must have no vision, for we are a
perishing people.

6. Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” John loves Jesus, there-
fore John keeps His commandments.

7. Ifyou are predestined then you are called, and if you are called then you are justified.
Thus, if you are predestined then you are justified.

8. If you trust in Christ then you are saved. Judas was not saved, so he must not have
trusted in Christ.

9. If Jesus is John raised from the dead, then miraculous powers would be at work in
Him. Miraculous powers are at work in Him. He must be John raised from the dead.

10. If he is the Antichrist, then he opposes God’s people. If he is the Beast, then he op-
poses God’s people. Therefore, if he is the Antichrist then he is the Beast.

252
 UNIT FOUR: ARGUMENTS IN NORMAL ENGLISH

Additional Exercises for Lesson 32

Develop valid syllogisms that establish the given statements as conclusions.
1. A joke is a very serious thing.

2. There is no one righteous, not even one.

3. Some athletes earn straight A’s.

4. Some earthquakes are not dangerous.

Imagine that you are preparing a debate over whether or not animals will be in heaven.
5. Develop two valid syllogisms with this conclusion: “Some animals will be in heaven.”

253
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

6. Develop two valid syllogisms with this conclusion: “No animals will be in heaven.
”

254
 CUNT ARES:

INFORMAL
FALLACIES
Contents

Lesson 33: Fallacies of Distraction

Exercise 36
Lesson 34: Fallacies of Ambiguity
Exercise 37
Lesson 35: Fallacies of Form
Exercise 38
Lesson 36: Detecting Fallacies
Exercise 39
Unit 5 Review Questions
Unit 5 Review Exercises
o
 LESSGN«33

FALLACIES
OF DISTRACTION
W: have completed our study of categorical logic. We have
seen how to distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms,
and have had some practice constructing valid syllogisms. We will
now finish this introductory course by taking one more look at in-
formal logic. This unit will consider the use and identification of CAUTION
informal fallacies, which are popular, informal forms of reasoning Human reasoning takes
that, despite their popularity, are invalid or unhelpful. Studying and much of its meaning from
responding to such casual mistakes make up an important part of context. Informal or “street
what we might call “street fighting” logic. fighting” logic is not as
neat or mathematical as
In learning “street fighting” logic, the first thing to do (as always) is
formal logic.
to make some distinctions. We distinguish, first, fallacies of distrac-
tion, second, fallacies of ambiguity, and third, fallacies of form. We
are no longer doing logic in the realm of Euclid, and so you should
soon notice that fallacies of ambiguity could, if we wanted them to,
be also considered distracting. These categories are for convenience,
not for proclaiming an absolute, authoritative classification.
We must also note these are fallacies (or not) depending upon how
they are used. In other words, it is possible to reason rightly while us-
ing some of these arguments. Some want to consider them fallacies
in each and every situation, but human reasoning, in practice, takes
DEFINITIONS
much of its meaning from the context. This means that these forms
An informal fallacy is a
of argument cannot be handled as though they were detached from
popular but invalid (or un-
real-life situations. helpful) form of argument.
Initially, we will consider some of the fallacies of distraction,
A fallacy of distraction is
which are arguments that point us to information that seems relevant an argument that confuses
to the conclusion but is really not relevant. The point of this lesson is the issue by pointing to
to show how each of the informal fallacies can be either a fallacy or information that is actually
not, depending. How can we tell the difference? We must use wisdom. irrelevant to the conclusion.

257.
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

1. Ipse dixit. This is Latin for “he has said it himself.” The fallacy
is committed when an illegitimate appeal is made to authority. The
form this takes is “X says thus and such. Thus and such must be
the case.” Or, “If P says it, then Q must be. P does in fact say it.
Therefore, Q, and, incidentally, Q.E.D.”
DEFINITION
This is modus ponens, and is therefore valid. “But how can it be
Ipse dixit is an illegitimate
valid and a fallacy?” you ask. Remember, this is street logic. The issue
appeal to authority.
is the legitimacy of the appeal—the argument is valid but unsound if
the premise is false. If the authority is legitimate (and relevant), then
there is no fallacy at all. If not, then it is an instance of ipse dixit.

The ipse dixit: “Henry Schwartz says there is no Creator,

and therefore, there is no Creator.”
Not the ipse dixit: “The Bible says God is the Creator,
and therefore, God is the Creator.”

2. Ad populum. This fallacy means an appeal “to the masses.” The

thing that makes it a fallacy is that the appeal is made to the mere
mass of the masses, and not to those aspects of mankind which the
masses have and which are legitimate to appeal to, such as legiti-
mate authority. When an imbalanced appeal is made (“Mom, all my
DEFINITION
friends are doing it!”), the fallacy is committed.
Ad populum is an illegiti-
mate appeal to a majority.
The ad populum: “This story must be truly great—it’s
a best seller.”
Not the ad populum: “Everyone has found the Bible
to be a profitable book—you should read it too.”

3. Ad baculum. This fallacy is an appeal “to the stick,” an illegiti-

mate appeal to force. An ad baculum is a thinly-veiled threat. Once
again, we find that we do not have a level playing field, which is a
drag for modern man because he is an egalitarian and really likes
DEFINITION
to have a level playing field. The Scriptures tell us that the rod is for
Ad baculum is an illegiti- the back of fools. Parents bringing up children properly appeal ad
mate appeal to force. baculum all the time. The question again comes down to this: Is the
authority a legitimate one, and is the goal of the threat proper?

258
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

The ad baculum: “If you don't vote for Sen. Snoutsnuffle,

the ozone layer will be destroyed in six months, and
we will all die!”
Not the ad baculum: “If you do not see the wisdom
of our laws against murder, perhaps you will be
influenced by our death penalty.”

4. Ad hominem. This means “to the man.” Ad hominem is verbally

attacking a person instead of his argument. Again, this fallacy is not
always committed whenever someone is verbally attacked. All these
fallacies must have a hidden value system built into them. The fallacy
depends upon whether the man being attacked really is a bad person,
and whether his character is relevant to the argument he is making. DEFINITION
Ad hominem is a verbal
The ad hominem: “Yes, we know that you maintain that attack on a person rather
than his argument.
the sun rises in the east every morning. But we also
know that youre a jerk.”
Not the ad hominem: “How can we believe your testi-
mony? You've been convicted of perjury three times
in the past two years.”

5. Bulverism. ‘This is dismissing an argument by simply pointing

out why the one presenting the argument came to believe it. This is
a fallacy unless the person’s reason for adopting the argument is truly
relevant to your argument. The name “Bulverism” comes from an
essay by C. S. Lewis in God in the Dock, in which he affectionately
DEFINITION
names this fallacy after an imaginary Ezekiel Bulver. It is also known
as the genetic fallacy. It usually follows this form: “You believe that Bulverism is attacking a
position by pointing out
just because you are a [fill in the blank]. So I don’t need to believe it.”
how the arguer came to
hold it.
Bulverism: “You are saying that infants shouldn't be
baptized because you grew up in a Baptist home.”
Not Bulverism: “You are running for Congress as a
Democrat today but yesterday you lost the Repub-
lican primary. You are just maintaining the Demo-
cratic platform because of personal ambition.”

O59
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

6. Tu quoque. This means, in essence, “Yeah? Well, you do it too!”

A man guilty of this is pointing out an inconsistency between what
his opponent says and what his opponent does, and uses the incon-
sistency as an excuse to ignore his opponent. The fallacy is not com-
mitted when the behavior in question is perfectly fine.
DEFINITION
Tu quoque points to an Tu quoque: “Dont tell me I can't smuggle cocaine—you
inconsistency between a
person’s argument and
do it too!”
behavior. Not tu quoque: “Why are you telling me it’s wrong to
read fiction? You do it too.”

7. Ad ignorantiam. This is an appeal to lack of information. It is,

in effect, an argument from silence, i.e., “Nobody has proven it to
be false, so it must be true.”

Ad ignorantiam: “UFOs must be alien spaceships. The

government has never offered any other satisfactory
DEFINITION
explanation.”
Ad ignorantiam is an Not ad ignorantiam: “] remind the jury that my client
argument from lack of
is innocent until proven guilty.”
evidence.

8. Chronological snobbery. You commit this fallacy when you re-

ject (or affirm) a position solely on the basis of how old (or new) it is.
Traditionalists commit this fallacy one way and modernists in another.
The traditionalist says that it is old, and therefore it is good. The mod-
ernist says that it is old, and therefore it is bad. The passage of time does
not establish truth, though it is an element that may be considered.

DEFINITION Chronological snobbery: “Categorical logic may have

Chronological snobbery is worked for Aristotle, but it’s outdated now.”
an argument based merely Not chronological snobbery: “I think that we should
on the passage of time.
be more careful before we dismiss something our
ancestors have done for centuries.”

260
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

SUMMARY
Fallacies of distraction point us toward information that is irrelevant
to the conclusion. There are many different forms, including ipse
dixit, ad populum, ad baculum, ad hominem, Bulverism, tu quoque,
ad ignorantiam, and chronological snobbery. We must always use
wisdom in identifying an argument as a fallacy.

261
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Exercise 36 (15 points)

Identify the fallacy of distraction that is being made in each of the following examples.
1. Oswald must have been the lone assassin of Kennedy. Nobody has ever been able to
prove any of the conspiracy theories.

2. Santa Claus must be real. The editor of the newspaper said so.

3. You believe in Jesus because you were brought up in a Christian home.

4. We need to appropriate billions of dollars for AIDS research. Otherwise, you or

someone in your family will probably get AIDS within the next ten years.

5. You don’t believe that Genesis is to be understood Jiterally, do you? That’s a rather
old-fashioned doctrine.

6. We should say the pledge of allegiance at our assemblies just like other schools do.

7. A heretic named Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva, and John Calvin ap-
proved of it. Calvinism has to be wrong.

8. You can’t tell me it’s wrong to cheat. You've cheated before too!

9. Do you disagree with me when I say that mankind is corrupt? That proves that you
have been corrupted already.

263
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

10. The senator is accused of communist activities, and there is nothing to disprove these
suspicions.

11. You should read this book that your boss wrote. You would not want to jeopardize
your position in this company, would you?

12. The vice-president said that potato is spelled with an “e” at the end, so it must be true.

13. Professor Pepper thinks teachers should get paid more so they won't leave teaching
for other jobs. But he’s a teacher himself, so that figures.

14. My dad tells me that I shouldn't shoplift, but I don’t listen to him, because I happen
to know that he stole candy from stores when he was a kid.

15. Of course God exists. Belief in a deity is one of the most ancient concepts of man.

264
 bESS ON: 34

FALLACIES
OF AMBIGUITY
VE have seen that fallacies of distraction point away from the
real issue toward something irrelevant. However, some falla-
cies occur not because the information is irrelevant, but because it
is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unclear. These can all be called
fallacies of ambiguity.
DEFINITION
Fallacies of ambiguity
1. Equivocation. When we use words with more than one defini-
are arguments that confuse
tion, we are using them equivocally. In an argument, it is necessary
the real issue with mul-
for the terms to retain the same definition throughout. When we tiple, vague, or otherwise
change the meaning of our terms in mid-argument, we commit the unclear meanings.
fallacy of equivocation. Much of our humor depends upon equivo-
cation, but misunderstandings do also. Gordon Clark cites the ex-
ample of the teenager who answered the first question from the
Westminster Shorter Catechism, which asks what the chief end of
man is, by saying, “His head, of course.”
Consider this example:

The only rational being is man.

Women are not men. DEFINITIONS

This explains why women are so irrational. Equivocation is chang-

ing the definition of a
term in the middle of an
Formally this argument appears to be valid. But obviously the
argument.
word man is used equivocally, first to mean human, then to mean
The fallacy of accent alters
specifically male.
the meaning of a state-
ment through changed
2. Accent. This is similar to equivocation. We commit this fallacy emphasis.
when we change the meaning of a sentence, not through different
definitions, but through different emphases. Compare the subtly

265
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

different meanings of each of the following versions of “We should

not steal our neighbor's car’:

a. Weshould not steal our neighbor's car. (But it is fine

if someone else does.)
b. We should not steal our neighbor's car. (But we will
anyway.)
c. We should not steal our neighbor’s car. (It is okay
if we vandalize it.)
d. We should not steal our neighbor’ car. (But the folks
across town are fair game.)
e. We should not steal our neighbor’s car. (We're after
the lawn mower.)

Note that the fallacy occurs at the point of misunderstanding. We

can often make a point through emphasis, but no fallacy is made un-
til the sentence is emphasized differently than the speaker intended
it, resulting in an erroneous conclusion.

DEFINITION 3. Amphibolly. This fallacy results when the grammar of a sentence

Amphiboly is a vagueness is such that the sentence is misunderstood. This can occur when
of grammar that disguises someone is being purposely vague. For example, the Oracle of Delphi
or alters meaning. once told the Greek King Croesus that if he went to war, he would
“destroy a mighty kingdom.” The king was heartened and went to
war, only to be defeated. When Croesus complained, he was told that
he did destroy a great kingdom—his own! This fallacy is common
among newspaper headlines and advertisements that, in an attempt
to be brief, are unintentionally ambiguous. One such headline ran:

Tuna Biting off Washington Coast

If someone were to use this as evidence that they must grow big fish
in those waters, they would be committing the fallacy of amphiboly.
DEFINITION
4. Composition. A fallacy of composition occurs when someone
Composition is the fallacy assumes that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. For
of transferring attributes
example, if chlorine is a poison (and it is) and sodium is a poison
from parts to whole.
(and it is), then if we combine them (NaCl), the result should be

266
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

twice as poisonous, right? Wrong. We are talking about table salt.

Here is another example:

Each part ofthe 747 airplane is designed to be lightweight.

So a 747 must not weigh very much.

Obviously, what is true about every part of a 747 is not necessarily

true of the whole.
DEFINITION

5. Division: This is the opposite of composition. The fallacy of divi- Division is the fallacy
of transferring attributes
sion is therefore made when one assumes that what is true of the whole
from whole to part.
must be true of each of the individual parts. Here is an example:

The Lakers are a great basketball team, so each member

of the team must be a great basketball player.

SUMMARY

Fallacies of ambiguity occur when an argument is unclear in some

way. This can be due to the lack of clarity of individual words or
of the sentence as a whole. We considered five types: equivocation,
accent, amphiboly, composition, and division.

267
 UNG? FIVE. ENFORMAL FALLACIES

Exercise 37 (10 points)

Name the fallacies of ambiguity being made in the following examples.

1. Mother, you told me not to take any cookies. I didn’t
take them anywhere—I ate them right here.

2. Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs must be nutritious, because

they are part of this nutritious breakfast.

3. My friend said that he hit his head on a rock, breaking it

into a million pieces. But I don’t think anyone could live
with a shattered head!

4. Teacher: “I instructed you to write a letter to someone,

and you haven’t done it.” Student: “Yes I did. I wrote the
letter A.”

5. Jesus taught that we should love our neighbor. So it’s okay

to hate the people across town.

6. If two teaspoons of sugar make this taste good, then four

will make it taste twice as good!

7. Bread and water is better than nothing, but nothing is

better than a steak dinner. So bread and water is better
than a steak dinner.

8. That was an expensive dinner. I wonder how much the

water cost!

9. I read on the front page, “Grandmother of Eight Makes

Hole in One.” Her poor grandchild!

10. “Mary had a little lamb”? ll bet the doctor was surprised.

269
yi
 MESSON-3D

FALLACIES
OF FORM
;fallacies of form are arguments with a structural problem. Thus
an informal argument can be invalid because of improper form
like a formal argument can. Let’s see how.

1. Circular reasoning. Someone who commits this fallacy is guilty

DEFINITIONS
of assuming what must be proven. In other words, one of his prem-
ises already contains the conclusion, though usually in disguise. Fallacies ofform are
arguments that fail to es-
Circular reasoning follows this basic, simplified form:
tablish their conclusions
because of a weakness in
P is true, therefore P is true. logical structure.

Suppose you hear someone arguing that rock music is better than Circular reasoning is se-
classical music because classical music is not as good. Bach would cretly assuming what you
are trying to prove.
not be impressed with this reasoning.
But most examples of circular reasoning are not so glaring.
Consider this one, for instance:

She must love me, because she says she does. And she would
not lie to someone she loves, would she?

Note: Some instances of circular reasoning are not necessarily fal-

lacious. When trying to defend the truth of our ultimate standards,
we find that we must reason circularly. For believers, the ultimate
standard is the Bible. So when a Christian apologist argues that the
Bible is true because it is from God, as the Bible declares, he is simply T ION
CAU
demonstrating the Bible to be his absolute standard. An unbelieving When discussing ultimate
scientist might also appeal to science to prove that science is true. standards of authority, cir-
This merely shows what his ultimate standard is. But if that standard cular reasoning is eventu-
is not truly ultimate, then he is guilty of circular reasoning. ally inevitable.

271
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. This is Latin for “after this, therefore
because of this.” It is also called false cause. This fallacy is commit-
ted by the rooster who thought the sun rose because of his crowing.
After all, every morning after he crowed, the sun rose. Post hoc thus
follows this pattern:
DEFINITION
Post hoc ergo propter hoc P happened before Q, therefore P caused Q.
is improperly assuming
that a sequence in time This is an easy error to fall into, particularly for over-simplistic
implies a cause and effect. historians.

The American War for Independence happened after the

Renaissance; therefore the Renaissance was one ofthe causes.

It may have been, but chronological sequence itself does not es-
tablish the fact.

DEFINITION 3. Either/or. This is the fallacy of oversimplifying the choices. It is

Either/or is making an also called bifurcation. The one guilty of the fallacy presents a false
argument based on a false dilemma; you must believe either this or that. There may be other
dilemma. options, and if there are, this fallacy is present. Here is an example:

What, you didnt finish your homework? You must be

either stupid or lazy.

Obviously, there could be other reasons. The questioner has assumed

something that he should not have before making this conclusion.

4. Complex question. ‘This is the error committed when a question

DEFINITIONS is framed in such a way as to exclude a legitimate response. It is also
A complex question is a called a loaded question. For example, suppose a man were asked,
question crafted to exclude
any possible legitimate Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
response.
To say “yes” is to admit past guilt, and to say “no” is to continue
unrepentant. This fallacy is thus related to either/or. In both cases,
something unstated is being assumed which causes a fallacy. The
fallacy occurs at the point that an erroneous conclusion is drawn
when the question is answered, as shown here:

2/2
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Lawyer: What did you do with the money you stole?

Witness: Nothing!
Lawyer: Aha! So you admit to stealing the money!

5. Apriorism: This is the fallacy of the hasty generalization. We

have to use the word “hasty” because generalizations can be used DEFINITION
legitimately. We call a legitimate generalization induction. But if Apriorism is a hasty
the generalization is obviously a wild leap into the void, it can be generalization.
identified as the fallacy of apriorism. For example, this little girl
generalizes too quickly:

I tried to talk to that new boy Tommy yesterday, and he

stuck his tongue out at me. Boys are so mean!

Do not confuse apriorism with composition. Someone who com- CAUTION

mits apriorism may look at one particular case, and fallaciously apply Make sure you know the
what he sees to the whole. But someone who commits the fallacy of difference between aprior-
composition looks at all the parts, and says what is true of them all ism (inference from a mem-
must be true of the whole. ber of a category to the
entire category) and com-
position (inference from all
parts of a whole to a whole).

SUMMARY

Fallacies of form result when an argument is put together in an im-

proper way. We looked at five fallacies of form: circular reasoning,
post hoc ergo propter hoc, either/or, complex question, and apriorism.

ayo
—_— a a
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Exercise 38 (10 points)

Identify the following fallacies of form by name.
1. My mom wouldn't take me to the movies, and
she wouldn’t let me watch a video. She never
lets me have any fun!

2. President Schwartz was just elected, and the

stock market soared to new heights. I’m glad I
voted for him.

3. “Have you stopped getting drunk all the time?”

“No!” “Oh, so you admit to being a drinker!”
4. Rotten Banana is a great band. I know, because
all the cool kids like them. Which are the cool
kids? The ones who like Rotten Banana, of course!

5. That guy from the community church reads all

the time. They must all be bookworms out there.
6. If you leave the Christian school, then you will
have to go to the public schools.

7. I didn’t study because I had to go to church. |

got an A on the test anyway. I’m going to go to
church before tests more often!

8. Miracles don’t happen because that would violate

natural law, and natural law cannot be violated.
9. She killed the Wicked Witch of the East. So she
must either be a good witch, or a bad witch.

10. Ever since I started eating seaweed with my meals,

I haven’t gotten sick once. You should eat it, too!

Nf,
 LESSON 36

DETECTING
FALLACIES
e have seen numerous informal fallacies, some of which are
harder to identify than others. Recognizing fallacies as they
occur in daily life (such as those found in the editorial page of most KEY POINT
newspapers) can be even more difficult. You may have read a falla-
It takes practice to iden-
cious argument in a letter to the editor and said to yourself, “I know tify fallacies accurately.
that’s not true. I wish I could tell what is really wrong with this line Always ask yourself what
of thought.” How do you figure it out? the conclusion is and how
The technique for identifying informal fallacies is the same as it is reached.
identifying any kind of reasoning. You must ask two questions about
the person doing the arguing:

1. What is he trying to prove?

2. How is he trying to prove it?
FURTHER STUDY
For example, consider this section out of Bertrand Russell’s essay
entitled “Why I am not a Christian”: Most traditional logic
texts, from Aristotle’s
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly on fear. books up to today, include
the identification of various
It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I
informal fallacies. Almost
have said, the wish to feel that you have kind of an elder no two texts include the
brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and same list or follow the
disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing—fear of same arrangement. One
the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. helpful recent exposition
of the informal fallacies
Now, what is Lord Russell trying to prove? He is trying to prove that has been made by Hans
and Nathaniel Bluedorn in
Christianity is not true (consider the title of the essay). How is he trying
their delightful book Zhe
to prove that in this paragraph? We see him attempting to identify the Fallacy Detective: Thirty-Six
source of Christian faith. Apparently, he thinks that if he can say why Lessons on How to Recognize
someone believes Christianity, then it must not be true. Having answered Bad Reasoning, published
these questions, we can readily spot this as an extended Bulverism. by Trivium Pursuit.

270
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

We will do one more exercise identifying fallacies. As you work

through them, ask yourself the two questions above. Your answers
should guide you to identifying the correct fallacy. Also, keep in
mind that some bad arguments can commit more than one fallacy
CAUTION at a time. If you cannot decide between two possible fallacies, it may
Remember that an argu- be that both are correct.
ment can commit more
than one fallacy at a time.

SUMMARY

Pinpointing fallacies can sometimes be difficult. Ask yourself,

“What is being argued?” and “How is it being argued?” to help
identify the fallacy.

278
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Exercise 39 (20 points)

Identify the fallacies made in the examples below. They can be any of the fallacies of
distraction, ambiguity, or form.

1. The Facebook post read, “If you don’t share

this, you may lose your job, get in an accident,
or go bald!”

2. That Facebook post was real! Just a week after

I ignored it, I failed my logic test.

3. My girlfriend always shares posts. She says

that nobody has proven to her that they don’t
really work.
4. A recycling poster said, “Recycle cans and waste
paper,’ so I am wasting paper every chance I get!
5. All my friends recycle their cans, so it must be
a good thing to do.

6. I read that “Life is either a daring adventure,

or nothing.” My life certainly isn’t a daring
adventure, so I guess it’s nothing.

7. The apostle Paul told us to honor our leaders.

But he dishonored the high priest, so why
should I listen to him?

8. Honoring your leaders is an old tradition that no

longer applies to our modern, sophisticated age.
9. The Japanese always score higher on math than
the Americans. So I am sure our Japanese
neighbor can help you with your calculus.
10. The Japanese are better at math because they're
smarter. We know that they’re smarter, because
they always do better at math.

Continued on next page.

2/9
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

11. Hi, I am selling tickets to the policemen’s ball,

and I am sure you would like to support your
local police, so how much would you like to give?
[Link] course the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we ought
to increase military spending. As members of the
armed forces, they want as much as they can get.
13. We shouldn't listen to Senator Slug either,
since we all know he is a card-carrying member
of the radical right.

14. Oh, so you believe in evolution? Tell me, are

you descended from a monkey on your mother's
side or your father’s side?
15. The world was not created by God, for matter
has always existed, and thus needs no God to
explain where it came from.

16. The press has a duty to publish what is clearly in

the public interest. And there is certainly public
interest in the private life of the rich and famous.
17. I had a bad time with my former husband.
Trust me, dear, men are no good.
18. The idea of trying to colonize Mars is ridiculous.
My mother said it couldn’t possibly work.
19. Each snowflake is very light. There is no way
that snow could make that roof collapse.

20. Did that last guy say that snowflakes were light?
I always thought that snow was frozen water.

Challenge: Find and identify some informal fallacies from books, newspaper articles,
headlines, or even comic strips. Copy them onto a separate sheet of paper.

280
 WINET

REVIEW QUESTIONS
Answers can be found in the lesson under which the questions are listed.

Lesson 33: Fallacies of Distraction

. What are the three types of informal fallacies?
. What do fallacies of distraction do?
. What are the eight forms of fallacies of distraction considered in this lesson?
. Is it ever legitimate to use arguments that follow the same form as these informal fallacies?
. Translate the following Latin fallacy names: ipse dixit, ad populum, ad baculum, ad
NO
OG
BR
WM

hominem, tu quoque, ad ignorantiam.

Lesson 34: Fallacies of Ambiguity

What is a fallacy of ambiguity?
. What are the five fallacies of ambiguity considered in this lesson?
What is equivocation?
How does equivocation differ from accent?
How does it differ from amphiboly?
eye
er
. How are composition and division related?

Lesson 35: Fallacies of Form

. What is a fallacy of form?
. What are the five fallacies of form considered in this lesson?
. Is circular reasoning always fallacious?
. Translate from the Latin: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
What is another name for this fallacy?
. What is another name for the either/or fallacy?
What is the fallacy of a hasty generalization?
. What is a legitimate generalization called?
KWON
ON
DW

Lesson 36: Detecting Fallacies

1. What two questions should be asked when evaluating any kind of reasoning?
2. Where can examples of informal fallacies be found?

281
 UNIT 5

REVIEW EXERCISES
Students may do these exercises for further review of this unit.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 33

1. Most of the fallacies of distraction appeal to some element of fear. Explain the form
of fear being appealed to for each one.
Ipse dixit

Ad populum

Ad baculum

Ad hominem

Bulverism

Tu quoque

Ad ignorantiam

Chronological snobbery

283
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

2. Ipse dixit is an illegitimate appeal to authority. What are the characteristics of a le-
gitimate authority? Where do we as men derive true authority over other men?

3. The classic counterexample for ad populum is apparently learned by all mothers of

teenagers. Give the classic response of a mother whose teenage child argues, “But
mom, all my friends are doing it!”

4. Find some characters in comic strips who regularly appeal ad baculum.

5. Explain why World War II was not simply a massive example of ad baculum.

6. How is ad hominem the counterpart to ipse dixit?

7. Bulverism and tu quoque are often considered to be species of ad hominem. Explain why.

284
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

8. Ad ignorantiam is part of our legal system—someone is innocent if they have not

been proven guilty. Does something like chronological snobbery operate in our legal
system as well? Explain.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 34

1. What type of definition helps to avoid equivocation:?

2. How does equivocation relate to what you learned earlier about verbal disagreements?

3. A fallacy similar to equivocation may occur when people misinterpret completely

different words that happen to sound the same. Give an example.

4. Consider this fallacious argument: “The buffalo are disappearing. That creature is a
buffalo, so it must be disappearing too!” How could this be considered a fallacy of
equivocation? How could it be considered a fallacy of division? Which is the better
answer, and why?

285
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

Additional Exercises for Lesson 35

1. In one sense, circular reasoning is perfectly valid: obviously a statement follows from
itself. Why, then, is circular reasoning considered a fallacy?

2. What distinguishes apriorism from a legitimate generalization? Consider doing some

additional study on inductive reasoning.

Additional Exercises for Lesson 36

1. This book does not include all the possible informal fallacies. What other fallacies
exist? Consider doing some research to learn about other fallacies.

2. What is the value of learning how to identify informal fallacies? How should a
Christian respond to someone whom they hear committing an informal fallacy?

286
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

3. Find the book The Many Loves ofDobie Gillis by Max Shulman, and read the short story
“Love is a Fallacy.” List all of the fallacies mentioned in the story, and circle the ones
that are included in this text..

4, Write your own examples of each of the informal fallacies. For an additional chal-
lenge, work them into a continuous narrative.
ipse dixit

ad populum

ad baculum

ad hominem

Bulverism

tu quoque

ad ignorantiam

chronological snobbery

equivocation

accent

amphiboly

composition

287
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

division, £0. phi 5ae Pe 0) ge

circular reasoning | a

post hoc ergo propter hoc

eitherfor.

complex question

apriorism

Identify the following fallacies by name.

De UFOs are either alien spaceships, or the delusions of a

few crazy people looking for instant fame.
. UFOs aren’t alien spaceships. That idea went out of style
with the Star Trek generation.

The advertisement read, “Dog for sale. Eats anything

and is especially fond of children.” Well, I sure won't
buy that dog!
. Iam nobody. Nobody is perfect. Therefore, I am perfect.
Youre telling me that speeding is illegal? Well, how many
speeding tickets do you have?
10. Mr. Jones says he is honest, so I believe him, since hon-
est people don’t lie.
11. You can’t believe anything Jones says. He’s just a blue
collar worker who doesn’t even have a college diploma.
12.1f taking a vitamin a day will help me to be healthy, I
should take a whole bottle of vitamins to be really healthy!

288
 UNIT FIVE: INFORMAL FALLACIES

13.1 don’t need vitamins! You just think you should take
vitamins because your father works in a drug store.
14. Teacher: “The study of logic is valuable.” Student: “Oh,
so it’s the study of logic that is valuable? That must mean
that the practice of logic is a waste of time.”

15. Of course the study of logic is valuable. Schools all

across the country are starting to teach logic.
[Link] does not exist. That philosophy professor said so,
and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

17.1 don’t think God exists either. Nobody has proven to

me that he does.
18. Let it be known at the outset of this biology class that I
will not tolerate arguments seeking to support creation-
ism. You do want to pass this class, don’t you?

19. The archeopteryx fossil is half bird, half dinosaur. This

proves that all animals evolved from one species.
[Link]: “Have you ever given up smoking?” Patient:
“No, I haven't.” Doctor: “Then I'll just write down that
you are still a smoker.”
[Link] must be rich. She is a member of one of the
wealthiest sororities on campus.
22. Those are Sandy’s lucky shoes. The last time she wore
them she passed her logic test.
[Link]: “Your hog got into our garden again. You
need to get him a pen.” Farmer: “Why? He can't even
write with a pencil!”
[Link] must be basically good. I heard them sing a song
about it on children’s television.

25. That sign said, “Use right shoulder to install chains.”

Why, that would take years!

289
 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC

[Link] pixel on the computer monitor is motionless.

Obviously, the monitor cannot show motion.

27. Politician: “Thus I have proven that all communist na-

tions are allied with Russia.”
Reporter: “What about China? They aren’t allied with
Russia.”
Politician: “Really? Then they must not be true
communists.”
[Link] opponent says that abortion is murder, but 76% of
the people disagree. He is clearly wrong.
29. You can’t believe what doctors tell you these days. They
wear those ugly outfits, and most of them don’t even
sign their names legibly!
30. The televangelist said that if I didn’t send any money to
his ministry, I wouldn't be blessed by God. That’s why
I gave him so much.
31. That televangelist must have been right, because my
uncle had a stroke less than a week after he refused to
send him money. |
[Link] thinks that the husband should be the head of the
wife just because he is a man.

33. Did you vote to increase money for food stamps, or do

you prefer to let the poor starve?
34.“ There are no mountain lions within a hundred miles
of this city.” “How do you know?” “Well, have you
seen any?”
35. The Old Testament law cannot be applied to society
today. We need twenty-first century solutions to twenty-
first century problems.

290
 APPENDIX A

THE SQUARE
OF OPPOSITION
Universal
All S is P No S is P
Contrariety
ans v es)

in i
Contradiction
TdT] eT] Negative
Affirmative
Superimplication Superimplication

he
| :
e:
ay

Subcontrariety
Some S is P fae Some S is not P

Relationship Truth value between statements

Contradiction Opposite truth values; one must be true, the other must be false
Contrariety Cannot both be true; can both be false
Subcontrariety Can both be true; cannot both be false
Subimplication If the universal is true, the particular of the same quality is true
Superimplication If the particular is false, the universal of the same quality is false

291
 APPENDIX B

THE 256 FORMS

OF SYLLOGISMS
AAA-! AAA-2 AAA-3 AAA-4 IAA-1 IAA-2 IAA-3 IAA-4
AAE-1 AAE-2 AAE-3 AAE-4 IAE-1 [AE-2 IAE-3 IAE-4
AAI-1 AAI-2 AAI-3 AAI-4 IAI-1 [AI-2 IAI-3 IAI-4
AAO-1 AAO-2 AAO-3 AAO-4 IAO-1 [IAO-2 IAO-3 IAO-4

AEA-1 AEA-2 AEA-3 AEA-4 IEA-1 [EA-2 [EA-3 IEA-4

AEE-1 AEE-2 AEE-3 AEE-4 IEE-1 TEE-2 [EE-3 IEE-4
AEI-1 AEI-2 AE]I-3 AEI-4 IEI-1 IEI-2 IEI-3 IEI-4
AEO-1 AEO-2 AEO-3 AEO-4 IEO-1 IEO-2 IEO-3 IEO-4

AIJA-1 AIA-2 AIA-3 AIA-4 IIA-1 IIA-2 HA-3 IIA-4

AIE-1 AIE-2 AIE-3 AIE-4 IIE-1 IIE-2 IIE-3 IIE-4
AUl-1 All-2 AIl-3 AIl-4 II-l II-2 II-3 ll-4
AIO-1 AIO-2 AIO-3 AIO-4 HO-1 IO-2 IlO-3 IlO-4

AOA-1 AOA-2 AOA-3 AOA-4 IOA-1 IOA-2 IOA-3 IOA-4

AOE-1 AOE-2 AOE-3 AOE-4 IOE-1 IOE-2 IOE-3 IOE-4
AOI-1 AOI-2 AOI-3 AOI-4 IOI-1 IOI-2 IOI-3 IOI-4
AOO-1 AOO-2 AOQO-3 AOO-4 IOO-1 IOO-2 100-3 IOO-4

EAA-1 EAA-2 EAA-3 EAA-4 OAA-1 OAA-2 OAA-3 OAA-4

EAE-1 EAE-2 EAE-3 EAE-4 OAE-1 OAE-2 OAE-3 OAE-4
EAI-1 EAI-2 EAI-3 EAI-4 OAI-1 OAI-2 OAI-3 OAI-4
EAO-1 EAO-2 EAO-3 EAO-4 OAO-1 OAO-2 OAO-3 OAO-4

EEA-1 EEA-2 EEA-3 EEA-4 OEA-1 OEA-2 OEA-3 OEA-4

EEE-1 EEE-2 EEE-3 EEE-4 OEE-1 OEE-2 OEE-3 OEE-4
EEI-1 EEI-2 EEI-3 EEI-4 OEI-1 OEI-2 OEI-3 OEI-4
EEO-1 EEO-2 EEO-3 EEO-4 OEO-1 OEO-2 OEO-3 OEO-4

EIA-1 EIA-2 EIA-3 EIA-4 OIA-1 OIA-2 OIA-3 OIA-4

EJE-1 EJE-2 EJE-3 EIE-4 OIE-1 OIE-2 OIE-3 OIE-4
EII-1 EII-2 EII-3 EII-4 OII-1 OH-2 OU-3 OIl-4
EIO-1 EIO-2 EIO-3 EIO-4 OIO-1 OIO-2 OIO-3 OIO-4

EOA-1 EOA-2 EOA-3 EOA-4 OOA-1 OOA-2 OOA-3 OOA-4

EOE-1 EOE-2 EOE-3 EOE-4 OOE-1 OOE-2 OOE-3 OOE-4
EOI-2 EOI-3 EOI-4 OOF 1 OOI-2 OOI-3 OOI-4
EOI-1
EOO-2 EOO-3 EOO-4 OOO-1 OOO-2 OOO-3 OOO-4
EOO-1

poyfe,
THINK DANGEROUSLY.
Logic isn't just for experts—it should be your secret weapon. And it’s the kind of weapon that

teaches you how to fight. It’s the bones that give your clenched fist its structure. In Introductory
Logic, you'll learn how to think well by developing these rock-solid fundamentals:
e How to form and interpret statements, the building blocks of logical thought,
e How to compose valid syllogisms, and expose the invalid fakes using counterexamples,
e How to analyze arguments in normal English,
e How to identify and deflect informal fallacies (one of the most instantly applicable parts of logic),
e And much more.

Anybody can do /ntroductory Logic, no matter where they're learning. Brand new, clean,
easy-to-read layout, lots of margin notes for key points and further study, a step-by-step
modern method, and exercises for every lesson (plus review questions and additional exercises
for every unit) make /ntroductory Logic the perfect choice for establishing an in-your-bones
knowledge of the fundamentals of thinking well.

James B. Nance has more than twenty-five years of teaching experience at Logos School in 2
Moscow, Idaho. He has written for Classis and Credenda/Agenda and he regularly lectures at the Be
national conference for the Association of Classical Christian Schools. *

Douglas Wilson has been a pastor for thirty years, authoring many books including the
award-winning novel Evangellyfish and /s Christianity Good for the World?, a written debate with
internationally known atheist Christooher Hitchens.

Check out the Teacher Edition, DVD Course, and Test & Quiz Packet
for daily lesson plans and all the learning helps in this series!

ean 13: 978-1 ait <

J) ii
SBN-10: 1-59128-

canonpress*
CANONPRESS. COM. Mt
Sone
Cover design. by David Dalbey ([Link])