Unit 1 Nature of Logic

Inference-
IT’S A PROCESS IN WHICH THINKER PROCEEDS FROM THE PREMISES
TO THE CONCLUSION, BECAUSE THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PREMISES AND CONCLUSION. THIS RELATION IS THAT OF
IMPLICATION.
THIS RELATION IS THAT OF IMPLICATION.( BETWEEN 2 OR MORE
STATEMENTS).
PREMISE- IMPLICANS (WHICH IMPLIES SOME OTHER STATEMENT)
CONCLUSION- IMPLICATE (WHICH FOLLOWS FROM IMPLICANS)
EXAMPLES-
1. ALL HONEST MEN ARE TRUSTED
ALL GOOD MEN ARE HONEST
THEREFORE, ALL GOOD MEN ARE TRUSTED
0. A IS B
B IS C
∴ A IS C

INFERNECE AND IMPLICATION

Implication, in logic, a relationship between two propositions in which the second

is a logical consequence of the first, in most systems of formal logic

BUT,

1. A is husband of B

Therefore, B is husband of A.

0. A is a brother B

Therefore, B is a brother A
WHAT IS ARGUMENT?

An argument is a collection of statements, one of which is designated as the

conclusion, and the remainder of which are designated as the premises. Usually,
the premises of an argument are intended to support (justify) the conclusion of the
argument.

In addition to declarative sentences, there are also interrogative, imperative, and

exclamatory sentences. The sentences that make up an argument are all declarative
sentences; that is, they are all statements. The following may be taken as the
official definition of ‘statement’.

A statement is a declarative sentence, which is to say a sentence that is capable of

being true or false.

Eg. It is raining

I am hungry

2+2 = 4

God exists.

KINDS-

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS

CLASSIFICATION IS BASED THE NATURE OF RELATION BETWEEN

PREMISE AND CONCLUSION.
DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE / NONDEDUCTIVE
[Link] imply the conclusion Premises do not IMPLY the
conclusion
[Link] provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion Premises X sufficient
evidence for the
conclusion
.
3. If premises are true then conclusion must be true X
4. Conclusion does not go beyond the scope of premises Conclusion goes beyond
the scope of premises.
[Link] is always certain, clear Probable, uncertain
[Link] to particular Particular to universal
Eg. All men are mortal eg. A is a crow and is a black
Mahesh is a man B is a crow and is a black
Therefore, Mahesh is a mortal C is a crow and is a black, and so on.

Therefore, All crows are black.

FORM AND CONTENT OF ARGUMENT

Logic analyzes and classifies arguments according to their form, as opposed to

their content.
A statement consists of words arranged in a particular order. Thus, the form of a
statement may be analyzed in terms of the arrangement of its constituent words. To
be more precise, a statement consists of terms, which include simple terms and
compound terms. A simple term is just a single word together with a specific
grammatical role (being a noun, or being a verb, etc.). A compound term is a string
of words that act as a grammatical unit within statements. Examples of compound
terms include noun phrases, such as ‘the president of the U.S.’, and predicate
phrases, such as ‘is a Democrat’.
Logic analyzes and classifies arguments according to their form. The (logical) form
of an argument is a function of the forms of the individual statements that
constitute the argument. The logical form of a statement, in turn, is a function of
the arrangement of its terms, where the logical terms are regarded as more
important than the descriptive terms. Whereas the logical terms have to do with the
form of a statement, the descriptive terms have to do with its content.

VALIDITY OF ARGUMENT
An argument is valid if and only if there is no counterexample to the argument
under any interpretation of the non-logical symbols occurring in the argument.

So, to test for the validity of the argument, you take away all of the non-logical
parts of the argument (anything other than the connectives, quantifiers and
identity), replacing the rest by schematic letters. The search for a
counterexample to the argument is then a search for how we might interpret
the non-logical parts of the argument in order to make the premises true and the
conclusion false. If we cannot find any way to do this, the argument is
valid. If we can find such a way, the argument is not valid.

Here is another example. The proposition ‘It is raining or it is not raining’ is

a tautology because it has the form and any instance of this form is true. There is
no way to substitute any proposition in for p in the statement to get a falsehood.
For if p is true, is true, and if p is not true, ~p is true, and hence is true.

So, according to this account of logical validity, each model is a reinterpretation of

the non-logical parts of the argument. If no matter how the non-logical
parts are reinterpreted, you never have the premises true and the conclusion
false, the argument is valid. This view can be summarized simply: Logical validity
is truth preservation in virtue of logical form.

A good fit with logical practice-

This account fits well with what we do in practice in formal logic.

We take the formal structure of the argument, and we reinterpret the non-logical
parts of the argument in any way we see fit.

No mysterious necessity-

Any account of logic has to postulate some degree of necessity. The premises have
to get you to the conclusion in general. This is achieved in this account of
logic, not by postulating a mysterious notion of necessity, but by requiring that
the argument preserve truth, no matter how the non-logical language is
interpreted. The necessity of logic is a matter of its generality.

_________________________________________________________________
 Unit 7 (b) LAWS OF THOUGHT

he laws of thought are a sufficient foundation for the whole of logic, or that all
other principles of logic are mere elaborations of them. Traditional logicians
defined logic as the science of the principles of valid reasoning. Valid reasoning is
based upon certain principles, which are called laws of thought.
According to the traditional logicians, the three laws of thought were considered to
be necessary and sufficient conditions for valid reasoning.
Laws of thought, traditionally, the three fundamental laws of logic.
(1) The law of contradiction,
(2) The law of excluded middle ,
(3) The law of identity

For the law of identity, A is A; everything is what it is; every subject is its own
predicate. For the law of contradiction, A is not not-A; judgments contradictorily
opposed to each other cannot both be true. For the law of excluded middle,
everything is either A or not-A ; judgments opposed as contradictories cannot both
be false, nor can they admit the truth of a third or middle judgment, but one or the
other must be true, and the truth of the one follows from the falsehood of the other.

Unit 4 and 5

Need of Modern Classification of Propositions

Traditional logic deals with limited types of propositions. So, it was difficult to
deal with many types of propositions. This is the reason why Modern Logic or
formal logic came into existence. It follows and expands on Logic given by
Aristotle.
This logic simplifies the way in which we reason. It also makes difference between
form and content of propositions and arguments. This logic has introduced
mathematical formal methods in logic and with the help of these methods; we can
test the valid relationships between terms and propositions in no time.

Aim of Modern classification-

Modern logic aims at re-organizing the logical concepts and expanding the
boundaries of logical thinking. While doing so, we look at the statements used in
logic with a different perspective.
This is the reason why we classify them a bit differently here on the basis of terms,
verbs and connectives used in them. This way to classify the propositions makes
it easy to understand the relationship between parts of the propositions in an
argument as here we make them have objective and mathematical appearance.
Modern classification tries to simplify our thinking and also organize it more
effectively so that more types of reasoning can be included in the classification.

Modern Analysis of Proposition

In modern logic proposition means a statement which is said to be true or false.

For example-
1. Ashoka was the king of Pataliputra.
2. 3+6=9
3. Socrates was a philosopher.
4. No man is immortal.
Truth or falsity can be ascribed to every one of them. Every one of them can be
either true or false.
But 'May God help us' -is not a proposition; because the property's truth or falsity
can not be ascribed to it. In modern logic the components of a proposition i.e. the
subject and the predicate are known as 'constituents' of a proposition. The truth or
falsity of a proposition is called its truth value. The truth-value of a proposition is
determined by the fact. If a proposition represents a fact as it is, then the
proposition is true; otherwise it is false. But a proposition is different from a fact.
COMPARISON BETWEEN MODERN AND TRADITIONAL
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITION
● According to modern logicians there are innumerable kinds of propositions
whereas traditional schedule is mainly confined to the four forms of the
categorical propositions.
● According to modern logicians the subject and the predicate of a proposition
are the constituents of proposition but according to the traditional logicians
they are the constituents only.
● According to modern logicians there may be any number of constituents and
they may be combined in various ways. But traditional analysis of
proposition is limited to two constituents and one mode of combination.
● The traditional logicians have completely ignored some kinds of
propositions and others are confused. So traditional classification of
proposition is based on imperfect analysis and therefore it is unscientific.
But in comparison to it modern classification of proposition may be regarded
as more scientific.
Classification Of Propositions
The modern logicians have broadly classified the propositions into elementary
proposition and non-elementary proposition.
1. Elementary propositions are of two kinds-
A) Simple propositions.
B) Compound propositions.
0. Non-elementary propositions include -
All General propositions.

MODERN CLASSIFICATION (elementary proposition )

SIMPLE PROPOSITION
 Proposition which do not contain another proposition/s as a component. In
modern logic, simple proposition is defined as one with only one verb in it. Such
a proposition has no connective in it. The simple proposition has no connective.
They have only one verb and do not indicate any complicated meaning. A simple
proposition expresses a simple fact and it cannot be analyzed into further
propositions.
A simple Proposition makes an assertion about an individual (or individuals).
An individual is anything can possess attributes. Like - person, city, building,
country, etc. its combination of proper names such as Mumbai, galaxy and non-
proper names such as this man, that building, etc.
E.g. 1. Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketer.-
2. All cricketers are good fielder.
3. Taj Mahal is beautiful.
4. Seema is doing a course in logic.

Kinds of Simple Proposition

The Simple propositions are classified into two types, - a) subject-less

propositions, b) subject-predicate propositions,

The subject-predicate propositions are further classified into -i) Relational

propositions and ii) Class membership proposition.

a) Subject less Proposition- thinker asserts something but statement is not fully
expressed. Exclamatory or impersonal propositions. These propositions have only
predicate and no subject.

E.g. - a. Fire! b. It rains. C. Thieves!

These are primitive propositions (which appears to be psychologically prior even

to the most elementary proposition) and give information.
b)Subject -Predicate Proposition - an individual possesses a quality ( or
attribute).These propositions have a subject, a predicate and a verb.

E.g. 1. Ram is a boy.

2. Shyam is intelligent.

3. This paper is white.

3. Relational Proposition- it asserts a relation between two or more constituents. -

They are terms of relation. In this relation proceeds from something to something
else, it is called sense or direction of relation. (Referent - relatum.) Relational
propositions are the propositions that show some type of relationship between the
term of subject and that of predicate. This means in this type, both the subject and
predicate are singular terms. one may use the verbs -drink, love, enemy, hurt, or
words greater than, smaller than etc. to express various relations. Symbolic
expression - xRy / R(x,y)
E.g -1. Sita is wife of Ram. ,
2. Oliver is taller than Sam.
3. The lecturer teaches a course in English.
4. He owes me fifty rupees for a bag.
A relational proposition may contain any number of constituents. According to the
number of constituents the relations are called dyadic, triadic, tetradic, pentadic.
Relations involving more than five terms are called polyadic relations. The
constituents of a relational proposition are not the subjects and predicates but they
are the terms of relations or subjects of relations.
4. Class- membership Proposition - it shows that individual is a member of a
class. Class membership proposition shows that the subject term belongs to the
class indicated by predicate. So, here, predicate term is general.
E.g. 1. Shivaji was a hero.
2. Rabindranath Tagore is a poet.
 COMPOUND PROPOSITION-

Proposition which contain another proposition/s as a component. The compound

propositions have at least one connective used in them. They have one or more
component that connectives join meaningfully.
When we express these propositions in an objective way, we can explicitly state
whether the given compound proposition is true or not on the basis of truth or
falsity of the components it connects and the type of connective used.
E.g. 1. Sachin Tendulkar is either a cricketer or a singer.
2. Socrates was a philosopher and Russell was a mathematician.
1. Conjunctive proposition
2. Disjunctive proposition
3. Equivalent proposition
4. Implicative proposition
5. Negative Proposition

Connectives in Compound Proposition.

In modern logic the connecting words, commonly called as connectives, are

classified into two types, viz. Monadic and Diadic.

Monadic connective is a connective that works on only one proposition. The class
of monadic connectives has only one connective in it. This is negation.

Diadic connectives are connectives that work on two propositions. We have four
diadic connectives. They are; conjunction, disjunction, implication and
equivalence.
 1. Negative Proposition

When any proposition is negated, we get a negative proposition.

Expression - “it is not the case”, “it is not so”, etc.

Eg. - St. Luke was not proud.

This means in modern logic, negative proposition is no more with different

quality.

It is a compound proposition.

A negation is expressed by words like 'no, never, not' etc.

While symbolizing a negation, we use the symbol ' ~ ' that is called curl or
tilde.

A negation is true when the component to which it is attached is false.

Negation: ~P - Curl P / Negation P.

Truth Value of Negative Proposition
A negative proposition is false, if its component is true. It is true when its
component is false.
A monkey has a tale. - True - A monkey do not have a tale - false.
P - ~P
T-F
F-T
2. Conjuctive Proposition
Conjunctive Proposition- The compound proposition in which two or more
simple propositions are combined by the word 'and' is known as conjunctive
proposition. The words such as 'but', 'although', 'while', 'yet' etc. are also used to
combine the simple proposition
E.g. Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister of India and Joe Biden is the President
of the U.S.A.
Symbolically expressed as p . q
In this expression 'p' and 'q' stand for two simple propositions; and the symbol dot
(.) stands for 'and'.
The components of a conjunctive proposition are called 'conjuncts'.
Conjunction is expressed by words like 'and, but, ‘although’, 'while', 'yet'.
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' . ‘Called a dot.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are
true.
Conjunction: P . Q ’Law is useful and Religion is peaceful”
Truth Value of Conjuctive Proposition.
A conjunctive proposition is true if and only if both (or all) the conjuncts are true.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are
true.
P . Q
TTT
TFF
FFT
FFF
3. Disjunctive proposition
Disjunctive proposition: The compound proposition in which two propositions are
combined into one by the word 'or' (either-or) used in inclusive sense is called
disjunctive proposition. For example: Either Logic is interesting subject or it is a
scoring subject.
The components of a disjunctive proposition are presented in the form of
'disjuncts'. This disjunctive proposition may be symbolically stated as p v q.
Here p and q stand for two disjuncts and the symbol 'v' (the Latin word 'vel' or
'wedge') stands for 'either-or' in its inclusive sense. Disjunction is expressed by
words like 'either, or.'
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' v ' called a Wedge.
A proposition with disjunction is false only when both its components are false.
Disjunction: P v Q ‘Law is useful or Religion is peaceful”
Truth Value of Disjunctive Proposition.
A disjunctive proposition is true if and only if at least one of the disjuncts is
true. In other words a disjunctive proposition is true in case of one or other or both
disjuncts are true.
Inclusive (weak) and exclusive (strong) uses of ‘or’ - when both disjuncts are true -
the word ‘or’ is used in more inclusive sense. But when one of the disjunct is true
and other is false the disjuncts are taken to be exclusive.
Either I will study or I will eat an ice cream.
P VQ
T T T - WEAK
T T F - STRONG
F T T - STRONG
F FF

[Link] / Conditional proposition

Implicative proposition: The compound proposition in which two simple
propositions are combined by the word 'if-then' is called an implicative
proposition. For example: 'If there is drought then the price of food grains will
rise'.
The component proposition which follows 'if' is called the antecedent or the
'implicans' and the component proposition which follows 'then' is called the
'consequent' or the 'implicate'. In an implicative proposition one component
proposition implies the other. The proposition which implies the other is
'implicans' and the proposition which is implied is 'implicate'.
In an implicate proposition the implicate logically follows from the implicant.
Implication is expressed by words like 'If...then, unless…, in case'
 While symbolizing this, we use the symbol '⊃ ' called a horse-shoe.
A proposition with implication is false only when its antecedent, i.e. the first
component is true and the consequent, i.e. the second component is false.
Implication: P ⊃ Q 'If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
Truth Value of Implicative Proposition
If the antecedent is true, then consequent is also true. or it is not the case that the
antecedent is true and the consequent is false.
P ⊃ Q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F T F
5. Equivalent Proposition
Equivalence is expressed by words like 'if and only if... then.' Two component
propositions materially imply each other.
While symbolizing this, we use the symbol '≡ ' called a triple bar or material
equivalence.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components have same
truth value
Equivalence: P ≡ Q 'If & only If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
Truth Value of Equivalent Proposition
It is true if both the components have same truth value. It is false when one of the
components is false.
P ≡ Q
T T T
T F F
F F T
F T F

SYMBOLISING FURTHER COMPOUND PROPOSITION

1. Lata was not both a good singer and a good actress.

~( p . q )

2. The question is easy, but not the answer.

p . ~q

3. Neither Caltex nor Burmah Shell is an Indian company.

~( p v q )

[Link] is not the case that Jawaharlal Nehru was either a scientist or a saint.

~ ( p v q)

5. In case an Australian is fond of reading, he has to hide that weakness.

p⊃q

6. Unless he has good practice, he will lose the race. ( If not)

~p⊃q

7. If the light does not come on, then either the fuse is blown out or something is
wrong with the bulb.

~ p ⊃ ( q v r)

8. It is false that if and only if varsha is a great cook she will be great chef.

~ ( p ≡ q)
Non- elementary proposition
Proposition which does not vontain another proposition/s as a component.
General propositions are non-compound propositions.
They assert about a class or classes.
The traditional categorical propositions i.e. A, E, I, O belong to this category.
According to modern logicians both universal and particular propositions belong to
general propositions.
Quantification and General Propositions
Techniques for analysing the inner logical structure of general proposition -
1. Propositional Function
2. Quantifiers
Propositional Function-
Propositional function, in logic, is an expression which contains a variable, and
becomes a proposition when the variable is replaced by the suitable constant.
Denoted as a mathematical function, A(x) or A(x1, x2, · · ·, xn), the propositional
function is an abstraction from propositional forms (or predicates).
For example, “x is small,” “x ist klein,” and “x is not large” are all propositional
forms.
The substitution of some noun (or value) for x yields a specific proposition that is
either true or false, but “x is small” itself has no truth-value. Abstracting from these
three propositional forms yields a propositional function A(x), which has, for
example, the value true when x takes the value mouse and has the value false when
x is elephant. Propositional function is neither true nor false. That is why we
cannot consider truth value of a propositional function.
Saira Banu is beautiful. Taj Mahal is beautiful. - x is beautiful.
‘x’ is called individual variable. ( x,y,z) it stands for any individual. When x is
replaced with proper name of an individual or individual constant, the expression
becomes proposition. a to w - individual constants. x,y,z - individual variable.

Introduction to Quantification
Method of quantification is given by Giuseppe Peano. Peano only has a universal
quantifier. He does not define an existential quantifier in the ‘Principles’. The
quantifier is always attached to a conditional or biconditional.
Quantification is the method of symbolising statement or sentence on the basis of
[Link] method of quantification can be used only for deductive proof. There
are two methods of obtaining propositions from a propositional function. These are
instantiation and quantification (or generalisation).
● Universal quntifier ( x)
● Existential quantifier -( ∋ x)
Quantifiers are variables to be added to proposition in such a way that they are free
or bound.
Quantification is the method of symbolising statement or sentence on the basis of
quantity. Quantification or generalisation consists in asserting a PF of All or Some
values of variables .

Bx - x is beautiful ( propositional function ) - replace individual variable with

proper name of individual (broader sense which consist the names of cities, places ,
etc. ) or individual constant ( a-w)- then we obtain a singular proposition. Taj
Mahal is beautiful .
Generalisation / quantification - we obtain general proposition from a propositional
function-
Universal generalization - we obtain universal general proposition from a
propositional function by placing a universal quantifier (x)
(x) Bx
In generalisation - we add quantifier and in Instantiation we remove quantifier.

SYMBOLISING SINGULAR PROPOSITION

Singular proposition asserts a property about an individual.
● Variables - individual variables - (x,y,z), it stands for any individual
whatsoever.
● Constants - Predicate constants ( A-Z)- qualitative, Individual constants (
a-w) - definite subject
● Predicate constants are mainly for singular proposition.
● Symbolisation - 1st Predicate constant & ten individual constant.
Predicate variable - psi, phi
e.g.
1. Taj Mahal is beautiful - Bt.
2. Trevon is weak. - Wt - (Predicate constant and then individual constant.)
Fast-Food is not healthy - ~Hf
GENERAL propositions either affirm or deny (1) the existence of something or (2)
a property of the whole universe or 3) the relation between two classes. So there
are three kinds of general propositions. They are
1) Existential General Proposition- An existential proposition directly affirms or
denies the existence of something. For example: a) Tiger exists. b) There are no
unicorns. - ~ ( ∋ x) Ux
In predicate logic the first propositions can be symbolized by using existential
quantifier as ( ∋ x) (Tx)
2) One-Predicate General Proposition. One-Predicate General Propositions
either affirm or deny a property or an attribute about the whole universe. For
example: a) everything is mortal b) Nothing is permanent.
The first proposition is symbolized as (x) (Mx) and the second proposition is
symbolized as (x) (~Px)
3) General Propositions asserting relations between two classes.
This proposition states that one class is wholly or partly included in or
excluded from another class. For example:
a) All lions are animals. b) No man is perfect c) Some students are clever d)
some philosophers are not scientists.
The traditional categorical propositions i.e. A, E, I, O belong to this category.
According to modern logicians both universal and particular propositions belong to
general propositions.
a) All lions are animals. b) No man is perfect c) Some students are clever d)
Some philosophers are not scientists
Modern logicians have tried to bring out the formal structure of general proposition
by using quantifies. Thus we can symbolize the above examples as follows.
a. All lions are animals. It means 'Given any x, if x is lion, then x is animal'.
(x) (Lx ⊃ Ax)
b) No man is perfect It means if 'Given any x, if x is man, then x is not perfect'.
(x) (Mx ⊃ ~Px)
c) Some students are clever It means 'There is at least one x such that x is student
and x is clever'.( ∋ x) (Sx. Cx)
d) Some philosophers are not scientists
It means 'There is at least one x such that x is philosopher and x is not scientists'. (
∋ x) (Px . ~ Sx)
A few- Affirmative Few - Negative significance - some not

1. A few roses are red. Some roses are red - I There is at least one x such that x
is a rose and x is a red.
( ∋ x) ( Rx . Ex )
0. A few roses are not red . - O - Some roses are not red. There is atleast one x
such that x is a rose and x is not red.
( ∋ x) ( Rx . ~Ex )
0. Few roses are red - O - Some roses are not red. There is at least one x such
that x is a rose and x is not red.
( ∋ x) ( Rx . ~Ex )
0. Few roses are not red. - I - Some roses are red - There is at least one x such
that x is a rose and x is a red.
( ∋ x) ( Rx . Ex )
1. All apples are sweet. - A
Given anything, if it is an apple then it is sweet.
Given any x, if x is an apple, then x is sweet
(x) ( Ax ⊃ Sx)
0. Youngsters are arrogant. I - Some youngsters are arrogant.
There is a thing such that it is a youngster and it is arrogant.
There is an x such that x is a youngster and x is arrogant.
( ∋ x) ( Yx . Ax)
__________________________________________________________
Unit 6
Opposition of Proposition
1. Mediate Inference - We proceed from two given propositions to another
proposition.
2 Premises we draw a conclusion - Syllogism
2. Immediate Inference- We proceed from one given proposition to another
proposition.
1 premise we draw a conclusion - Opposition of Proposition and Education.

Traditional square of opposition- it’s an arrangement of lines that illustrates

logically necessary relation among the four kinds of categorical proposition. And it
is also a process of inference.
The square of opposition is a chart that was introduced within classical
(categorical) logic to represent the logical relationships holding between certain
propositions in virtue of their form. (A E I O)
The square of opposition is a diagram representing the relations between the four
basic categorical propositions. The origin of the square can be traced back to
Aristotle making the distinction between two oppositions: contradiction and
contrary. However, Aristotle did not draw any diagram. This was done several
centuries later by Apuleius and Boethius.
● When premise is true, the inferred proposition may be true, false or doubtful.
Traditional Classification of Proposition
Quantity- Universal/ Particular
Quality- Affirmative/ Negative
A- Universal Affirmative/ Singular
E- Universal Negative
I- Particular Affirmative
O- Particular Negative
[Link]- A and O, I and E - ( proposition having same subject and
predicate ,having different quality and quantity both )

Propositions are contradictory when the truth of one implies the falsity of the
other, and conversely. Here we see that the truth of a proposition of the form
All S are P implies the falsity of the corresponding proposition of the form
Some S are not P. For example, if the proposition “all industrialists are
capitalists” (A) is true, then the proposition “some industrialists are not
capitalists” (O) must be false. Similarly, if “no mammals are aquatic”
(E) is false, then the proposition “some mammals are aquatic” must be
true.

Both contradictory propositions can never be true together and can never be
false together.- it expresses complete opposition between proposition.
 2. Contraries- A and E ( proposition having same subject and predicate
,having same quantity but different quality ) (It can never be true together,
but they may both be false) - at least one is false - it expresses only partial
opposition.

Propositions are contrary when they cannot both be true. An A proposition,

e.g., “all giraffes have long necks” cannot be true at the same time as the
corresponding E proposition: “no giraffes have long necks.” Note,
however, that corresponding A and E propositions, while contrary, are not
contradictory. While they cannot both be true, they can both be false, as with
the examples of “all planets are gas giants” (false) and “no planets are
gas giants.” (false).
3. Sub-contraries- I and O ( proposition having same subject and predicate , having
same quantity but different quality )Propositions are subcontrary when it is
impossible for both to be false. Because “some lunches are free” is false, “some
lunches are not free” must be true. Note, however, that it is possible for
corresponding I and O propositions both to be true, as with “some nations are
democracies,” and “some nations are not democracies.” Again, I and O
propositions are subcontrary, but not contrary or contradictory.
(Cannot be false together, but they may both be true)

4. Subaltern- A and I, E and O (proposition having same subject and

predicate, having same quality but different quantity) two propositions are
said to stand in the relation of subalternation when the truth of the first
(“the superaltern”) implies the truth of the second (“the subaltern”), but
not conversely. A propositions stand in the subalternation relation with the
corresponding I propositions. The truth of the A proposition “all plastics are
synthetic,” implies the truth of the proposition “some plastics are
synthetic.” However, the truth of the O proposition “some cars are not
American-made products” does not imply the truth of the E proposition
“no cars are American-made products.” In traditional logic, the truth of
an A or E proposition implies the truth of the corresponding I or O
proposition, respectively. Consequently, the falsity of an I or O
proposition implies the falsity of the corresponding A or E proposition,
respectively. However, the truth of a particular proposition does not
 imply the truth of the corresponding universal proposition, nor does the
falsity of a universal proposition carry downwards to the respective
particular propositions.

Exercise-
1. No mangoes are ripe - false ( E) / true
Contradictory - ( I ) - Some mangoes are ripe. ( True)/ False
Contrary - ( A ) - All mangoes are ripe. ( ? ) / False
Subcontrary - (NIL )
Subaltern - ( O ) - Some mangoes are not ripe. ( ?) / True.
2. Some mangoes are not ripe O -( False.) / (true )
Contradictory - A - All mangoes are ripe. ( true ) / (false )
Contrary - ( nil)
Sub-contrary - I - Some mangoes are ripe. ( true ) ( ? )
Subaltern - E - No mangoes are ripe. (false ) ( ? )
3. A FEW STONES ARE DIAMONDS. ( TRUE )
Some stones are diamonds. I ( T )
Contradictory - E - No stones are diamonds. ( F )
Sub-altern- A - All stones are diamonds. ( ? )
Sub-contrary - O - Some stones are not diamonds. ( ? )
Contrary – NIL

Unit 3 (C)
Distribution of Terms-

- a term is said to be distributed, when the reference is to its entire denotation.

 - a term is said to be undistributed, either when the reference is to the part of its
deno/denotation is not definite.

Subject - quantity determines distribution

Predicate - quality determines distribution

A- Subject Distributed Predicate undistributed

E- Subject Distributed Predicate Distributed

I- Subject undistributed Predicate undistributed

O- Subject Undistributed Predicate Distributed

Asebinop - S B N P

A- All human being are mortal.

E- No human being is mortal.

I - Some human beings are mortal.

O- Some human being are not mortal.

 ________________________________________________________________
Unit 7 (a)
Eduction-

Eduction, is a type of immediate deductive inference, where a conclusion is

drawn from given premise by changing its subject and predicate or both.

1. Conversion
2. Obversion

Other immediate inferences

In all kinds of eductions , if the premise is true, the conclusion is true.

Conversion
 ● Given/ Premise - S-P ( convetend)
● Conclusion - Converse - P-S
● Process - conversion
● Rules-
1. The rule of quality- SAME
2. Subject and Predicate both interchange their places.
3. Role of distribution- ( No term can be distributed in the conclusion,
unless it is distributed in the premise .) - what is true of a part of a
class may not be true of whole class.(that is why when a term is not
distributed in the original proposition, it can not be distributed in the
converse(CONCLUSION. )
4. Quantity - may change. ( A )- in ( E & I - no change )
Kinds of Conversion-
1. Simple conversion - A - A,
2. Converse per Accident - A - I
An exception to ‘A’ Proposition ( A-A)
Special conditions - SAP PAS.
1. Definition -
2. Synonyms
3. When there is definite ‘singular term’
4. Properties ( characteristics, nature)
5. Definition -
All squares have four sides.
∴ All four sided things are square.
2. Synonyms
India is Bharat.
 ∴ Bharat is India
3. When there is definite ‘singular term’-
Everest is the highest mountain.
∴ the highest mountain is Everest.
4. Properties (characteristics, nature)-
All men are laughing animal.
∴ All laughing animals are men.
Obversion-
It is simply a way of obtaining a negative equivalent for an affirmative
proposition, or a affirmative equivalent for a negative proposition.
● Given- S-P ( obvertend )
● Conclusion - S-P ( obverse )
● Process - obversion
● Rule of Quantity- Same ( Universal - Universal & Particular - Particular)
● Predicate’s Contradiction P - P (non-P)
● Rule of quality - Changes
● A- All S are P. No S is non-P. (E)
● E- No S are P. All S are non-P. (A)
● I- Some S are P. Some S are not non-P. (O)
● O- Some S is not P. Some S is non-P. (I)
● A - All S is P
● E - No S is non-P
● E - No S is P
● A - All S are non P
● I - Some S are P
 ● O - Some S are not non P
● O - Some S are not P
● I - Some S are non P

S-P A E I O
CON P-S I E I -
OBV S-P E A O I

0ther immediate inferences.

1. Material obversion
2. Inference by Added Determinants.
3. Inference by complex Conception
4. Inference by Converse Relation
The validity of these inferences cannot be judged from the form of inferences, but
from knowledge of content.
[Link] obversion-
It’s a process of inference in which the subject and the predicate of the inferred
proposition are the contraries of the subject and the predicate of the given
proposition.
● Quality - same
● E.g. Heat expands bodies.
● ∴ Cold contracts them. ( Valid )
Objection -
Women are broad minded.
● ∴ Men are narrow minded. (invalid )
 2. Inference by Added Determinants.
It consists in limiting the original subject and predicate by qualifying them with the
same determinant (adjective). - Valid
1. All cars are vehicles.
∴ All red cars are red vehicles. (valid)
3. Inference by complex Conception
It’s similar to Inference by Added Determinants.
As S & P both are limited but in different way.
Here S & P become parts of a more complex conception.
E.g. An elephant is an animal.
∴ the tail of an elephant is the tail of an animal.
4. Inference by Converse Relation
It’s like relational proposition, but direction of relation changes and the word by
which the relation is expressed is replaced by its correlative.
E.g.
A is the husband of B
∴ B is the wife of A
Validity depends upon the nature of relation.