Chapter 1: Basic Logical Concepts

Section 1: What Logic Is

 Definition of Logic: Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to
distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning.
 Purpose: Logic seeks to discover and apply objective criteria to determine whether the
conclusion reached follows from the premises assumed in an argument.
 Importance: Correct reasoning provides the only solid foundation for making judgments
that can be completely relied upon, contrasting with reliance on authority, emotion, or
habit.

Section 2: Propositions and Arguments

A. Propositions (The Building Blocks of Reasoning)

 Definition: A proposition is a statement; it asserts that something is or is not the case.

 Truth Value: Every proposition is definitively either true or false. Its truth or falsity
may, however, be currently unknown.
 Proposition vs. Sentence: A proposition is not identical to the declarative sentence used
to assert it; different sentences (even in different languages) can assert the very same
proposition.
o Statement is often used synonymously with proposition.
o A sentence can assert different propositions depending on its context.
 Non-propositions: Questions, commands, and exclamations are not propositions because
they are neither true nor false.
 Compound Propositions: Propositions can be complex, containing other propositions.
o Conjunctive: Asserting a conjunction asserts the truth of each component
proposition separately (e.g., asserting A and B).
o Disjunctive (Alternative): Asserts that at least one component is true, without
asserting the truth of any single component (e.g., A or B).
o Hypothetical (Conditional): Asserts an "if–then" relationship, without asserting
the truth of either the antecedent ("if" clause) or the consequent ("then" clause).

B. Arguments (Clusters of Propositions)

 Definition: An argument is a group of propositions where one proposition (the

conclusion) is claimed to follow from the others (the premises), which provide support for
its truth.
 Inference: In constructing an argument, an inference is drawn, which is the process
connecting the cluster of propositions.
 Structure: Arguments are composed of premises and a conclusion.
o Conclusion: The proposition affirmed on the basis of the other propositions.
o Premises: The propositions affirmed (or assumed) to provide support for the
conclusion.
 Variation: Arguments can be simple (one premise and a conclusion) or complex. The
order of premises and conclusions can vary widely.
 Distinction: A single compound proposition (like a hypothetical statement) is not an
argument, because it asserts an overall relationship but draws no inference.
Section 3: Recognizing Arguments

 Necessity: Arguments must be recognizable and distinguishable from non-argumentative

passages before they can be evaluated.

A. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators

 Indicators: Words or phrases signal the appearance of an argument's conclusion or

premises.
o Conclusion Indicators (Examples): therefore, hence, so, thus, consequently, it
follows that, which shows that.
o Premise Indicators (Examples): since, because, for, as indicated by, the reason
is that, inasmuch as.
 Absence of Indicators: Sometimes the existence of an argument is indicated solely by
the meaning of the passage or its context.

C. Premises or Conclusions Not in Declarative Form

 Rhetorical Questions: An interrogative sentence can function as a premise if it assumes

an obvious assertion (a rhetorical question). Arguments relying on rhetorical questions are
generally suspect.
 Commands/Imperatives: A command (imperative) is strictly not a proposition.
Commands serving as conclusions are usually interpreted as propositions stating that the
recommended action should be done.
 Phrases: Premises may be expressed as phrases that serve as shorthand for full
propositions.

D. Unstated Propositions (Enthymemes)

 Enthymeme Definition: An argument stated incompletely, where one or more

constituent propositions are unstated but assumed to be understood.
 Purpose: Premises may be unstated if they are widely considered unquestioned
common knowledge, or sometimes deliberately omitted if they are controversial to
shield them from attack.

Section 4: Arguments and Explanations

 Superficial Similarity: Both arguments and explanations use indicator words like
"because," "for," or "therefore".
 Argument Goal: To establish the truth of a proposition (Q) by offering evidence (P).
 Explanation Goal: To account for why a proposition (Q) known or accepted as true is
true, by offering causes or reasons (P).
 Key Distinction: If Q is doubtful in context, the passage is likely an argument (P is a
premise). If Q is known/accepted as true, the passage is likely an explanation (P is the
causal account).

Section 5: Deductive and Inductive Arguments

 Claim is the Mark: The distinction between the two rests on the nature of the claim
made regarding the relation between premises and conclusion.
Feature Deductive Argument Inductive Argument
Support
Absolute necessity/conclusiveness. Probability only.
Claim
Evaluation Valid (if conclusion must be true given Stronger or Weaker (Terms "valid" and
Term true premises) or Invalid. "invalid" do not apply).
Validity is stable; adding premises does Strength is unstable; new information can
Stability
not increase validity. strengthen or weaken the argument.
Certain (if premises are true and reasoning
Conclusion Probable, never absolutely certain.
is valid).
Core Task Discriminate valid/invalid reasoning. Ascertain facts/empirical relationships.

Section 6: Validity and Truth

 Truth and Falsity: Attributes of individual propositions (statements). A proposition is

true if it asserts what is the case.
 Validity and Invalidity: Attributes of arguments. They describe the logical relationship
between premises and conclusion. An argument as a whole is neither true nor false.
 Validity and Premise Truth: An argument can be valid even if one or more of its
premises are false.
 Validity and Conclusion Truth: The truth or falsity of an argument's conclusion
does not determine its validity. (An invalid argument can have a true conclusion).
 The Impossible Combination: A deductive argument cannot be valid if its premises are
true and its conclusion is false.

Soundness

 Definition: A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is valid AND all of

its premises are true.
 Significance: Only a sound argument can definitively establish the truth of its conclusion.

Key Concepts Summary (A, E, I, O Propositions)

Proposition Letter Quantity Quality Distributes

All S is P A Universal Affirmative Subject term only
No S is P E Universal Negative Both S and P terms
Some S is P I Particular Affirmative Neither term
Some S is not P O Particular Negative Predicate term only

(Note: "S" = Subject term; "P" = Predicate term; distribution means the proposition refers to
all members of that class).
 Chapter 5

 What the chapter does: Explains the basic building blocks of classical (Aristotelian)
deductive logic using classes and standard categorical propositions (A, E, I, O). It also
compares the traditional (Aristotelian) and modern (Boolean) interpretations, and
introduces symbolic and diagram methods.

1) The theory of deduction

 Deductive argument: Claims its premises give conclusive grounds for the conclusion. If
so, it’s valid.
 Validity: If all premises were true, the conclusion must be true.
 Classical (Aristotelian) logic: Traditional system based on categorical propositions and
syllogisms.
 Modern symbolic logic: Developed in the 19th–20th centuries; uses symbols and the
Boolean interpretation (see below).

2) Classes and categorical propositions

o Example relations: 1) Whole inclusion: All dogs ⊆ mammals. 2) Partial overlap:

 Class: A collection of all objects that share some feature.

Some athletes ⊆ females. 3) Mutual exclusion: Triangles and circles share no

members.
 Categorical proposition: Talks about classes, affirming or denying inclusion.
o Example valid argument (about class relations):
 No athletes are vegetarians.
 All football players are athletes.
 Therefore, no football players are vegetarians.

3) Four kinds of standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, O)

 A (Universal Affirmative): All S is P.

o Meaning: Every S is a P (full inclusion).
o Diagram idea: Shade S∧non-P.
o Example: All politicians are liars.
 E (Universal Negative): No S is P.
o Meaning: No S is a P (no overlap).
o Diagram idea: Shade S∧P.
o Example: No politicians are liars.
 I (Particular Affirmative): Some S is P.
o Meaning: At least one S is a P (overlap exists).
o Diagram idea: Put x in S∧P.
o Example: Some politicians are liars.
 O (Particular Negative): Some S is not P.
o Meaning: At least one S is an S and not a P (S-outside-P exists).
o Diagram idea: Put x in S∧non-P.
o Example: Some politicians are not liars.
Notes on “some”: In logic, “some” = “at least one,” not “several.”

Venn-style diagram cues (text version)

 Regions:
o S∧P: overlap
o S∧non-P: S outside P
o non-S∧P: P outside S
 Marks:
o Shade = region is empty
o x = at least one thing in that region
 A: All S is P → shade S∧non-P
 E: No S is P → shade S∧P
 I: Some S is P → x in S∧P
 O: Some S is not P → x in S∧non-P

4) Quality, quantity, and distribution

 Quality: Affirmative or Negative

o A, I are affirmative; E, O are negative.
 Quantity: Universal or Particular
o A, E are universal; I, O are particular.
 Copula: The “to be” verb linking S and P (is, are, were, will be, is not, etc.).
 Distribution (who is “talked about in full”?)
o A: “All S is P” → Subject (S) distributed; Predicate (P) undistributed.
o E: “No S is P” → S distributed; P distributed.
o I: “Some S is P” → Neither S nor P distributed.
o O: “Some S is not P” → S undistributed; P distributed.

Distribution examples (easy picture idea with “bananas” and “fruits”)

 A: All bananas are fruits → every banana included (S distributed), but not every fruit is
said to be banana (P not distributed).
 E: No bananas are fruits → all bananas excluded from fruits, and all fruits excluded from
being bananas (both distributed).
 I: Some bananas are fruits → says nothing about all bananas or all fruits (neither
distributed).
 O: Some bananas are not fruits → not all bananas (S not distributed), but refers to the
whole fruit class excluded from those bananas (P distributed).

5) The traditional square of opposition (Aristotelian view)

 Opposition: Relations between same S and P with changed quality/quantity.

 Contradictories:
o A vs O: “All S is P” contradicts “Some S is not P”
o E vs I: “No S is P” contradicts “Some S is P”
o Both cannot be true and cannot be false.
 Contraries (A vs E): Cannot both be true, but can both be false (traditional view).
 Subcontraries (I vs O): Cannot both be false, but can both be true (traditional view).
  Subalternation:
o A → I (traditionally, from universal affirmative to particular affirmative)
o E → O (traditionally, from universal negative to particular negative)
o Superaltern (universal) implies its subaltern (particular), not vice versa.
 Immediate inference: An inference from one premise only (no mediation).
o Square allows many quick truth-value transfers (traditional lists).

6) Further immediate inferences

 Conversion: Swap subject and predicate; quality stays the same.

o Valid for: E and I.
o Not valid for: O.
o A only by limitation (see below).
o Examples:
 E: No circles are squares → No squares are circles (valid).
 I: Some women are writers → Some writers are women (valid).
 Conversion by limitation (traditional): From A (“All S is P”) infer I (“Some P is S”).
o Steps: A → I (subalternation), then convert I.
o Example: All dogs are animals → Some animals are dogs.
 Complements:
o Complement of class S = all non-S things; term written as non-S or S̄ .
 Obversion: Change quality (Affirmative ↔ Negative) and replace predicate with its
complement; always valid for A, E, I, O.
o Examples:
 A: All residents are voters → No residents are nonvoters.
 I: Some metals are conductors → Some metals are not nonconductors.
 Contraposition: Replace S with non-P and P with non-S; quantity and quality unchanged.
o Valid for: A and O.
o Not valid for: I.
o E only by limitation (see below).
o Examples:
 A: All members are voters → All nonvoters are nonmembers (valid).
 O: Some students are not idealists → Some nonidealists are not nonstudents
(valid).
 Contraposition by limitation (traditional for E):
o E: No S is P → infer O: Some non-P is not non-S.

7) Existential import and interpretations (Aristotelian vs Boolean)

 Existential import: A statement asserts existence if it claims there is at least one thing of a
type.
o I and O always have existential import (“some” = at least one).
 Problem with the traditional square:
o If I and O assert existence, and if (traditionally) A implies I and E implies O, then
A and E would also assert existence. This causes contradictions for empty classes
(like unicorns, leprechauns, inhabitants of Mars).
 Boolean (modern) interpretation (adopted in this chapter):
o Universal statements (A, E) do NOT assert existence.
 “All S is P” means: If anything is S, it is P.
  “No S is P” means: If anything is S, it is not P.
o Particular statements (I, O) DO assert existence.
o Consequences:
 Contradictories (A↔O, E↔I) still hold.
 Contraries (A vs E) and Subcontraries (I vs O) do NOT hold in general.
 Subalternation (A→I, E→O) is NOT valid in general.
 Conversion by limitation and contraposition by limitation are NOT valid.
 Existential fallacy: Illegitimately assuming a class has members (e.g., inferring existence
from a universal in Boolean logic).

Helpful Boolean examples

 “All unicorns have wings” and “No unicorns have wings” can both be true (if there are no
unicorns).
 “Some unicorns have wings” is false (because it wrongly asserts existence).

8) Symbolism and diagrams for categorical propositions

 Empty class symbol: 0

o S = 0 means “There are no S.”
o S ≠ 0 (written S ≠ 0, or S Z 0 in the text) means “There is at least one S.”
 Product (intersection): SP means “things that are both S and P.”
 Complement (bar): S̄ means “non-S.”
 Symbolic forms (Boolean):
o A: All S is P → S P̄ = 0 (no S outside P)
o E: No S is P → SP = 0 (no S in P)
o I: Some S is P → SP ≠ 0 (overlap exists)
o O: Some S is not P → S P̄ ≠ 0 (S outside P exists)
 Boolean square of opposition (text view):
o Only diagonals (A↔O, E↔I) are contradictories.

Venn diagram (text) reminders for A/E/I/O

 A (All S is P): Shade S∧non-P

 E (No S is P): Shade S∧P
 I (Some S is P): Put x in S∧P
 O (Some S is not P): Put x in S∧non-P

More examples from the chapter

 A examples:
o All politicians are liars.
o All birds have feathers (traditional logic would infer “Some birds have feathers,”
but Boolean logic does not).
 E examples:
o No politicians are liars.
o No wrestlers are weaklings (contrapositive-by-limitation issues discussed).
 I examples:
o Some politicians are liars.
o Some soldiers are cowards.
  O examples:
o Some politicians are not liars.
o Some horses are not thoroughbreds.

Key term glossary (quick)

 Deductive argument: Premises aim to guarantee the conclusion.

 Validity: True premises would force a true conclusion.
 Class: Set of things sharing a feature.
 Categorical proposition: Statement about class inclusion/exclusion.
 Standard forms: A (All S is P), E (No S is P), I (Some S is P), O (Some S is not P).
 Quality: Affirmative (A, I) vs Negative (E, O).
 Quantity: Universal (A, E) vs Particular (I, O).
 Copula: Linking “to be” (is/are/etc.).
 Distribution: Whether a term is talked about “in full.”
o A: S only; E: S and P; I: neither; O: P only.
 Opposition: Relations among A/E/I/O with same S, P.
o Contradictories: A↔O; E↔I.
o Contraries (trad.): A vs E.
o Subcontraries (trad.): I vs O.
o Subalternation (trad.): A→I; E→O.
 Immediate inference: From one premise only (conversion, obversion, contraposition).
 Conversion: Swap S and P; valid for E, I; A only by limitation (trad.), not in Boolean.
 Obversion: Switch quality; replace P with non-P; valid for all.
 Contraposition: Replace S→non-P and P→non-S; valid for A, O; E only by limitation
(trad.), not in Boolean; invalid for I.
 Existential import: Asserting that something exists (I/O do; A/E don’t in Boolean).
 Boolean interpretation: Modern view—universals don’t assert existence.
 Existential fallacy: Wrongly assuming existence (especially inferring “some” from a
universal).
 Symbolism: 0 (empty), SP (intersection), S̄ (complement), equations/inequalities for
A/E/I/O.
📖 All Definitions from Chapter 5
Section 1 – The Theory of Deduction

 Deductive argument: An argument whose premises are claimed to provide conclusive

grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
 Validity: A characteristic of any deductive argument whose premises, if they were all
true, would provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument
is said to be valid.
 Classical or Aristotelian logic: The traditional account of syllogistic reasoning, in which
certain interpretations of categorical propositions are presupposed.
 Modern or modern symbolic logic: The account of syllogistic reasoning accepted today.
It differs in important ways from the traditional account.

Section 2 – Classes and Categorical Propositions

 Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in common.
 Categorical proposition: A proposition that can be analyzed as being about classes, or
categories, affirming or denying that one class, S, is included in some other class, P, in
whole or in part.

Section 3 – The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

 Standard-form categorical proposition: Any categorical proposition of the form “All S

is P” (universal affirmative), “No S is P” (universal negative), “Some S is P” (particular
affirmative), or “Some S is not P” (particular negative). Respectively, these four types are
known as A, E, I, and O propositions.
 Venn diagram: Iconic representation of a categorical proposition or of an argument, used
to display their logical forms by means of overlapping circles.

Section 4 – Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

 Quality: An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the

proposition affirms or denies class inclusion. Thus every categorical proposition is either
affirmative in quality or negative in quality.
 Quantity: An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether the
proposition refers to all members or only to some members of the class designated by its
subject term. Thus every categorical proposition is either universal in quantity or
particular in quantity.
 Copula: Any form of the verb “to be” that serves to connect the subject term and the
predicate term of a categorical proposition.
  Distribution: An attribute that describes the relationship between a categorical
proposition and each one of its terms, indicating whether or not the proposition makes a
statement about every member of the class represented by a given term.

Section 5 – The Traditional Square of Opposition

 Opposition: The logical relation that exists between two contradictories, between two
contraries, or in general between any two categorical propositions that differ in quantity,
quality, or other respects. These relations are displayed on the square of opposition.
 Contradictories: Two propositions so related that one is the denial or negation of the
other. On the traditional square of opposition, the two pairs of contradictories are
indicated by the diagonals of the square: A and O propositions are contradictories, and E
and I propositions are contradictories.
 Contraries: Two propositions so related that they cannot both be true, although both may
be false.
 Contingent: Being neither tautologous nor self-contradictory. A contingent statement
may be true or false.
 Subcontraries: Two propositions so related that they cannot both be false, although they
may both be true.
 Subalternation: The relation on the square of opposition between a universal proposition
(an A or an E proposition) and its corresponding particular proposition (an I or an O
proposition, respectively). In this relation, the particular proposition (I or O) is called the
“subaltern,” and the universal proposition (A or E) is called the “superaltern.”
 Square of opposition: A diagram in the form of a square in which the four types of
categorical propositions (A, E, I, and O) are situated at the corners, exhibiting the logical
relations (called “oppositions”) among these propositions.
 Immediate inference: An inference that is drawn directly from one premise without the
mediation of any other premise. Various kinds of immediate inferences may be
distinguished, traditionally including conversion, obversion, and contraposition.
 Mediate inference: Any inference drawn from more than one premise.

Section 6 – Further Immediate Inferences

 Conversion: A valid form of immediate inference for some but not all types of
propositions. To form the converse of a proposition the subject and predicate terms are
simply interchanged. The original proposition is called the “convertend.”
 Complement, or complementary class: The collection of all things that do not belong to
a given class.
 Obversion: A valid form of immediate inference for every standard-form categorical
proposition. To obvert a proposition we change its quality (from affirmative to negative,
or from negative to affirmative) and replace the predicate term with its complement. The
original proposition is called the “obvertend.”
 Contraposition: A valid form of immediate inference for some, but not for all types of
propositions. To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, its subject term is
replaced by the complement of its predicate term, and its predicate term is replaced by the
complement of its subject term.
Section 7 – Existential Import

 Boolean interpretation: The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, adopted

in this chapter and named after the English logician George Boole. In the Boolean
interpretation, universal propositions (A and E propositions) do not have existential
import.
 Existential import: An attribute of those propositions that normally assert the existence
of objects of some specified kind. Particular propositions (I and O propositions) always
have existential import; whether universal propositions (A and E) have existential import
is disputed between Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations.
 Existential fallacy: Any mistake in reasoning that arises from assuming illegitimately
that some class has members.