0 visualizações

Enviado por Kirstie Marie Saldo

- Critique Essay
- Alf Ross - Tu-Tu
- Ten Tips on Writing a Good Theory of Knowledge by Nick Alchin
- Selected slides-Reasoning1.pdf
- Sanders ENG 103 Fall 2011
- Bcom275 Week 4 Dq 1
- Four Types of Essay_ Expository, Persuasive, Analytical, Argumentative
- The Paper 1 Bible-PHart
- Critical Reading
- Studio VI Making Aruments
- Propositions
- Rules Of Syllogism.pdf
- Writing at Postgraduate Level - Critical Reading and Writing
- GMAT AA6分模板 by Sophia Yu92
- Essay
- Essay Writing Guide
- For and Against
- Summary for CT
- Review Writing Guidelines
- Debate Structure

Você está na página 1de 14

PROPOSITIONS Traditional techniques, based on Aristotle‟s works, for the

analysis of deductive arguments.

1.1 What Logic Is

Modern Symbolic Logic

Logic Methods used by most modern logicians to analyze

The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish deductive arguments.

correct from incorrect reasoning

Probability

1.2 Propositions The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive

argument) is true.

Propositions

An assertion that something is (or is not) the case 1.5 Validity & Truth

All propositions are either true or false

May be affirmed or denied Truth

An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the

Statement case.

The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time

In logic, the word “statement” is sometimes used instead of Sound

“propositions” An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

A proposition making only one assertion. 1. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions – true

premises and a true conclusion.

Compound Proposition 2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions –

A proposition containing two or more simple propositions false premises and a false conclusion

3. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions – all

Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition their premises are true, and their conclusions as well.

A type of compound proposition 4. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and

If true, at least one of the component propositions must be have a false conclusion.

true 5. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true

conclusion.

Hypothetical (or Conditional) Proposition 6. Some invalid arguments also have a false premise and a

A type of compound proposition; true conclusion.

It is false only when the antecedent is true and the 7. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false

consequent is false propositions – false premises and a false conclusion.

The truth or falsity of an argument‟s conclusion does not by

Inference itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument.

A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition The fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the

on the basis of one or more other propositions. truth of its conclusion.

If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may

Argument be certain that its conclusion is true also.

A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference. If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of

its premises can be true.

Premise Some perfectly valid arguments do have a false conclusion

A proposition used in an argument to support some other – but such argument must have at least one false premise.

proposition.

Conclusion CHAPTER 3

The proposition in an argument that the other propositions, LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION

the premises, support.

3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language

1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Deductive Argument One of the most influential philosophers of the 20 th century

Claims to support its conclusion conclusively Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of

One of the two classes of argument uses of what we call „symbols,‟ „words,‟ „sentences.‟

Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of Language used to convey information

probability “Information” includes false as well as true propositions,

One of the two classes of argument bad arguments as well as good ones

Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts,

Valid Argument reports of geographical trivia – our learning about the world

If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true and our reasoning about – it uses language in the

(applies only to deductive arguments) informative mode

The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises Language used to convey or evoke feelings.

are true Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes,

(applies only to deductive arguments) emotions and feelings

E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry

Expressive discourse is used either to:

-2–

1. manifest the speaker‟s feelings Parties in Potential Conflict May:

2. evoke certain feelings in the listeners 1. agree about the facts, and agree in their attitude towards

Expressive discourse is neither true nor false. those facts

2. they might disagree about both

Directive Discourse 3. they may agree about the facts but disagree in their

Language used to cause or prevent action. attitude towards those facts

Directive discourse is neither true nor false. 4. they may disagree about what the facts are, and yet they

Commands and requests do have other attributes – agree in their attitude toward what they believe the fats to

reasonableness, propriety – that are somewhat analogous to be.

truth & falsity

Note: The real nature of disagreements must be identified if they are

3.2 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions to be successfully resolved.

Notes: CHAPTER 4

Effective communication often demands combinations of DEFINITION

functions.

Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what 4.1 Disputes and Definitions

the actor believes.

Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been Three Kinds of Disputes

calling “attitudes.”

Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to 1. Obviously genuine disputes

depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do

attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects disagree, either in attitude or belief

their relevant beliefs. 2. Merely verbal disputes

there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine

Ceremonial Use of Language disagreement at all

A mix of language functions (usually expressive and 3. Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine

directive) with special social uses. there is ambiguity present and the disputers

E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of disagree, either in attitude or belief

worship, the portentous language of state documents

Criterial Dispute

Performative Utterance a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely

A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and verbal

performs some function.

Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in 4.2 Definitions and Their Uses

special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,

doing something more than combining the 3 major functions Definiendum

of language a symbol being defined

the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same

Sentences meaning as the definiendum

The units of language that express complete thoughts

4 categories: declarative, interrogative, imperative, Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use

exclamatory

4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming 1. Stipulative Definitions

a. A proposal to arbitrarily assign meaning to a newly

USES OF LANGUAGE introduced symbol

Principal Uses Grammatical Forms b. a meaning is assigned to some symbol

1. Informative 1. Declarative c. not a report

2. Expressive 2. Interrogative d. cannot be true or false

3. Directive 3. Imperative e. it is a proposal, resolution, request or instruction

4. Exclamatory to use the definiendum to mean what is meant by

Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic function. Form the definiens

often gives an indication of function – but there is no sure connection f. used to eliminate ambiguity

between the grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language

serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take any one of the 4 2. Lexical Definitions

grammatical forms a. A report – which may be true or false – of the

meaning of a definiendum already has in actual

3.4 Emotive and Neutral Language language use

b. used to eliminate ambiguity

Emotive Language

Appropriate in poetry 3. Precising Definitions

Language that is emotionally toned will distract a. A report on existing language usage, with

Language that is “loaded” – heavily charged w/ emotional additional stipulations provided to reduce

meaning on either side – is unlikely to advance the quest for vagueness

truth b. Go beyond ordinary usage in such a way as to

eliminate troublesome uncertainty regarding

Neutral Language borderline cases

The logician, seeking to evaluate arguments, will honor the c. Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that

use of neutral language. meaning is vague

3.5 Agreement & Disagreement in Attitude & Belief d. What is added to achieve precision is a matter of

stipulation

Dis/agreement in Belief vs. Dis/agreement in Attitude e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness

-3–

Ambiguity: Uncertainty because a word or phrase has more b. We provide another word, whose meaning is

meaning than one already understood, that has the same meaning as

the word being defined

Vagueness: lack of clarity regarding the “borders” of a

term‟s meaning 2. Operational definitions

a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations

4. Theoretical Definitions where certain actions or operations lead to

a. An account of term that is helpful for general specified results

understanding or in scientific practice b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given

b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or case if and only if the performance of specified

scientifically useful description of the objects to operations in the case yields a specified result

which the term applies

c. Used to advance theoretical understanding 3. Definitions by genus and difference

a. Defining a term by identifying the larger class (the

5. Persuasive Definitions genus) of which it is a member, and the

a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir distinguishing attributes (the difference) that

the emotions, using language expressively rather characterize it specifically

than informatively b. We first name the genus of which the species

b. used to influence conduct designation by the definiendum is a subclass, and

then name the attribute (or specific difference)

4.3 Extensions, Intension, & the Structure of Definition that distinguishes the members of that species

from members of all other species in that genus

Extension (Denotation)

the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly 4.6 Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference

applied

1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the

Intension (Connotation) species

the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to 2. a definition must not be circular

which a general term applies 3. a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow

4. a definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure,

4.4 Extension and Denotative Definitions or figurative language

5. a definition should not be negative where it can be

Extensional/Denotative Definitions affirmative

a definition based on the term‟s extension

this type of definition is usually flawed because it is most Circular Definition

often impossible to enumerate all the objects in a general a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being

class defined

We list or give examples of the objects denoted by NOTIONS AND BELIEFS

the term

5.1 What is a Fallacy?

2. Ostensive definitions

a demonstrative definition Fallacy

a term is defined by pointing at an object A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but

We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of contains a mistake in reasoning.

the term being defined When premises of an argument fail to support its

conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the argument

3. Quasi-ostensive Definitions is said to be fallacious

A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy

descriptive phrase In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect

The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some argument

descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being

known 5.2 The Classification of Fallacies

The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the

Subjective Intension mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting

What the speaker believes is the intension the argument

The private interpretation of a term at a particular time

THE MAJOR INFORMAL FALLACIES

Objective Intension

Fallacies of The most numerous and R1: Appeal to

The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the

Relevance most frequently Emotion

word‟s extension

encountered, are those in R2: Appeal to Pity

which the premises are R3: Appeal to Force

Conventional Intension

simply not relevant to R4: Argument Against

The commonly accepted intension of a term

the conclusion drawn. the Person

The public meaning that permits and facilitates

R5: Irrelevant

communication

Conclusion

Fallacies of Those in w/c the mistake D1: Argument from

Intensional Definitions

Defective arises from the fact that Ignorance

Induction the premises of the D2: Appeal to

1. Synonymous definitions

argument, although Inappropriate

a. Defining a word with another word that has the

relevant to the Authority

same meaning and is already understood

conclusion, are so weak D3: False Cause

-4–

& ineffective that reliance D4: Hasty D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)

upon them is a blunder. Generalizations A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of

Fallacies of Mistakes that arise P1: Accident a supposed authority who has no legitimate claim to

Presumption because too much has P2: Complex expertise in the matter.

been assumed in the Question

premises, the inference P3: Begging the D3: False Cause (causa pro causa)

to the conclusion Question A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is

depending on that treated as a cause.

unwarranted assumption. o Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “After the thing,

Fallacies of Arise from the equivocal A1: Equivocation therefore because of the thing”; a type of false cause

Ambiguity use of words or phrases A2: Amphiboly fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been

in the premises or in the A3: Accent caused by another event that came before it.

conclusion of an A4: Composition o Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which

argument, some critical A5: Division change in a particular direction is assumed to lead

term having different inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same

senses in different parts direction.

of the argument.

D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)

5.3 Fallacies of Relevance A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual

cases to generalizations

Fallacies of Relevance Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the

Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the reverse of another common mistake, known as the fallacy

conclusion. of accident.

They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance,

because they are the absence of any real connection between 5.5 Fallacies of Presumption

premises and conclusion.

Fallacies of Presumption

R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, “to the populace”) Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit

A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.

on reason.

P1: Accident

R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, “a pitying heart”) A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a

A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, particular case.

altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.

P2: Complex Question

R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, “to the stick”) A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that

A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force; presupposes the truth of some proposition buried within the

threat may also be veiled question.

P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, “circular argument”)

R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem) A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed within

A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against one of the premises.

the person taking a position A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always

o Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made worthless, as well

on the character of an opponent rather than on the Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has

merits of the opponents position been constructed may – if it is too large or fuzzy – go

o Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is undetected

made on the special circumstances of an opponent

rather than on the merits of the opponent‟s position 5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity

A type of ad hominem attack that cuts off rational discourse Fallacies caused by a shift or confusion of meaning within

an argument

R5: Irrelevant Conclusion (ignaratio elenchi, “mistaken proof”) A1: Equivocation

A type of fallacy in which the premises support a different A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of a word or phrase

conclusion than the one that is proposed are used in different parts of an argument

o Straw Man Policy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in

which the opponent‟s position is misrepresented A2: Amphiboly

o Red Herring Fallacy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words

which the opponent‟s position is misrepresented can be interpreted more than 1 way

The argument contains a premise based on 1 interpretation

Non Sequitor (“Does not Follow”) while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation

Often applied to fallacies of relevance, since the conclusion

does not follow from the premises A3: Accent

A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey 2 different

5.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction meaning within an argument, and the difference is based on

changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase

Fallacies of Defective Induction

Fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to A4: Composition

warrant the conclusion A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the

attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of the

D1: Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam) whole.

A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because The fallacy is reasoning from attributes of the individual

it has not been proved false, or false just because it has not elements or members of a collection to attributes of the

been proved true. collection or totality of those elements.

-5–

A5: Division 6.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the

attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the Quality

whole. An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by

o 1st Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is whether the proposition affirms or denies some form of

true of a whole must also be true of its parts. class inclusion.

o 2nd Kind: committed when one argues from the o If the proposition affirms some class inclusion,

attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of whether complete or partial, its quality is

the elements themselves. affirmative. (A and I)

o If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether

CHAPTER 6 complete or partial, its quality is negative. (E and

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS O)

An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by

Deductive Argument whether the proposition refers to all members (universal) or

An argument that claims to establish its conclusion only some members (particular) of the subject class.

conclusively o If the proposition refers to all members of the

One of the 2 classes of arguments class designated by its subject term, its quantity is

Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid universal.

(A and E)

Valid Argument o If the proposition refers to only some members of

A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the the lass designated by its subject term, its

conclusion must be true. quantity is particular.

(I and O)

Theory of Deduction

Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in General Skeleton of a Standard-Form Categorical Proposition

valid arguments. quantifier

Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid subject term

and invalid deductions. copula

predicate term

6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions

Distribution

Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified A characterization of whether terms of a categorical

characteristic in common. proposition refers to all members of the class designated by

o Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of that term.

another class. o The A proposition distributes only its subject term

o Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one o The E proposition distributes both its subject and

class may be included in another class. predicate terms.

o Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common. o The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor

its predicate term.

Categorical Proposition o The O proposition distributes only its predicate

A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a term.

relationship between one category and some other category.

Quantity, Quality and Distribution

6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions Letter Name Quantity Quality Distribution

A Universal Affirmative S only

1. Universal affirmative proposition (A Propositions) E Universal Negative S and P

Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is I Particular Affirmative Neither

included or contained in another class. O Particular Negative P only

Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is

excluded from the whole of another class.

Opposition

3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions) Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical

Propositions that assert that two classes have some member propositions (A, E, I, and O) exhibited on the Square of

or members in common. Opposition.

that assert that at least on member of a class is excluded from the Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both

whole of another class. be false.

A and O are contradictories: “All S is P” is contradicted by

Standard Form Categorical Propositions “Some S is not P.”

Name and Type Proposition Form Example E and I are also contradictories: “No S is P” is contradicted

A – Universal Affirmative All S is P. All politicians are by “Some S is P.”

liars.

E – Universal Negative No S is P. No politicians are Contraries

liars. Two propositions that cannot both be true

I – Particular Affirmative Some S is P. Some politicians If one is true, the other must be false.

are liars. They can both be false.

O – Particular Negative. Some S is not P. Some politicians

are not liars. Contingent

Propositions that are neither necessarily true nor

necessarily false

-6–

Subcontraries The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in

Two propositions that cannot both be false which universal propositions (A and E) are not assumed to

If one is false, the other must be true. refer to classes that have members.

They can both be true.

Existential Fallacy

Subalteration A fallacy in which the argument relies on the illegitimate

The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its assumption that a class has members, when there is no

corresponding particular proposition (the subaltern). explicit assertion that it does.

In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of

its corresponding particular proposition. Note: A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is

uttered to assert the existence of objects of some kind.

Square of Opposition

A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four 6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions

types of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O).

The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern Form Proposition Symbolic Explanation

Square of Opposition in important ways. Rep,

_ The class of things that are

Immediate Inference A All S is P SP = 0 both S and non-P is empty.

An inference drawn directly from only one premise. The class off things that are

E No S is P SP = O both S and P is empty.

Mediate Inference The class of things that are

An inference drawn from more than one premise. I Some S is P SP ≠ 0 both S and P is not empty.

The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the (SP as at least one member.)

mediation of the second. _ The class of things that are

O Some S is SP ≠ O both S and non-P is not

6.6 Further Immediate Inferences not P empty. (SP has at least one

member).

Conversion

An inference formed by interchanging the subject and Venn Diagrams

predicate terms of a categorical proposition. A method of representing classes and categorical

Not all conversions are valid. propositions using overlapping circles.

VALID CONVERSIONS

CHAPTER 7

Convertend Converse

CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

A: All S is P. I: Some P is S (by limitation)

E: No S is P. E: No P is S.

7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism

I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S

O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid) Syllogism

Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred

Complement of a Class from two premises.

The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.

Categorical Syllogism

Obversion A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical

An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of

and replacing the predicate term by its complement. which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.

Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical

proposition. Standard-From Categorical Syllogism

A categorical syllogism in which the premises and

OBVERSIONS conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions

Obvertend Obverse (A, E, I or O)

A: All S is P. E: NO S is non-P Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise

E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P. second, and the conclusion last.

I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.

O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P. The Parts of a Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism

Major Term The predicate term of the conclusion.

Contraposition Minor Term The subject term of the conclusion.

An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a Middle Term The term that appears in both premises but not in

proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and the conclusion.

replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject Major Premise The premise containing the major term. In standard

term. form, the major premise is always stated 1st.

Not all contrapositions are valid. Minor Premise The premise containing the minor term.

CONTRAPOSITION Mood

Premise Contrapositive One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical

A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S. syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form

E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation) propositions it contains.

I: Some S is P. (Contraposition not valid) The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3

O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the

standard-form order.

6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical The 1st letter names the type of that syllogism‟s major

Propositions premise; the 2nd letter names the type of that syllogism‟s

minor premise; the 3rd letter names the type of its

Boolean Interpretation conclusion.

Every syllogism has a mood.

-7–

Figure Note: A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it

The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position renders the syllogism invalid. Because it is a mistake of that special

of the middle term in its premises kind, we call it a fallacy; and because it is a mistake in the form of

Syllogisms can have four–and only four–possible different the argument, we call it a formal fallacy.

figures:

7.5 Exposition of the 15 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism

The Four Figures

1st Figure 2nd 3rd Figure 4th Figure The 15 Valid Forms of the Standard-

Figure Form Categorical Syllogism

Schematic M–P P–M M–P P–M 1st Figure 1. AAA-1 Barbara

Represen- S–M S–M M–S M–S 2. EAE-1 Celarent

tation .˙. S – P .˙. S – P .˙. S – P .˙. S – P 3. AII-1 Darii

The The The The middle 4. EIO1 Ferio

middle middle middle term may 2nd Figure 5. AEE-2 Camestres

term may term may term may be the 6. EAE-2 Cesare

be the be the be the predicate 7. AOO-2 Baroko

subject predicate subject term of 8. EIO-2 Festino

term of term of term of the major 3rd Figure 9. AII-3 Datisi

Description the major both both premise 10. IAI-3 Disamis

premise premises. premises. and the

11. EIO-3 Ferison

and the subject

12. OAO-3 Bokardo

predicate term of th

4 Figure 13. AEE-4 Camenes

term of the minor

the minor premise. 14. IAI-4 Dimaris

premise. 15. EIO-4 Fresison

7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument 7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism

CHAPTER 8

Valid Syllogisms SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE

- A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of

its form alone. 8.1 Syllogistic Arguments

- If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same

form will also be valid. Syllogistic Argument

- If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or

same form will also be invalid. can be formulated as one without any change in meaning.

7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism Reduction to Standard Form

Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.

7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Standard-Form Translation

Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put

Rule Associated Fallacy argument appearing in ordinary language into classical

1. Avoid four terms. Four Terms syllogism

A formal mistake in which a

categorical syllogism contains more than

3 terms. Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary

2. Distribute the middle Undistributed Middle Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical

term in at least one A formal mistake in which a Argument:

premise. categorical syllogism contains a middle

term that is not distributed in either First Deviation

premise. The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary

3. Any term distributed Illicit Major language may appear in an order that is not the order of

in the conclusion must A formal mistake in which the major the standard-form syllogism

be distributed in the term of a syllogism is undistributed in Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,

premises. the major premise, but is disturbed in the minor premise second, the conclusion third.

the conclusion.

Illicit Minor Second Deviation

A formal mistake in which the minor A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3

term of a syllogism is undistributed in terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language

the minor premise but is distributed in may appear to involve more than 3 terms – but that

the conclusion. appearance might prove deceptive.

4. Avoid 2 negative Exclusive Premises Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o

premises. A formal mistake in which both loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be

premises of a syllogism are negative. successful.

5. If either premise is Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion

negative, the conclusion from a Negative Premise Third Deviation

must be negative. A formal mistake in which one The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in

ordinary language may not all be standard-form

premise of a syllogism is negative, but

propositions.

he conclusion is affirmative.

Remedy: If the components can be converted into

6. From 2 universal Existential Fallacy

standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the

premises no particular As a formal fallacy, the mistake of

reduction to standard form may be successful.

conclusion may be inferring a particular conclusion from 2

drawn. universal premises.

-8–

8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity

E.g. Dog are carnivorous.

Eliminating Synonyms o Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.

A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a E.g. Children are present.

4th term, but only another way of referring to one of the 3 o Reformulated: Some children are beings who are

classes involved. present.

E.g. “wealthy” & “rich”

VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions

Eliminating Class Complements at all

Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.

not belong to that class (explained in 6.6) o Reformulated: Some children are not believes in

E.g. “mammals” & “nonmammals” Santa Claus.

E.g. There are white elephants.

8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form o Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.

Note: Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard IX. Exceptive Propositions, using “all except” or similar

form, may be translated into standard form so as to allow the expressions

syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams or by the use of rules A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of

governing syllogisms. some class – except for members of one of its subclasses –

are members of some other class

I. Singular Proposition Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is

A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs somewhat complicated, because propositions of this kind

(or does not belong) to a particular class make 2 assertions rather than one

Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but

we can nevertheless interpret a singular proposition as a E.g. All except employees are eligible.

proposition dealing w/ classes and their interrelations E.g. All but employees are eligible.

E.g. Socrates is a philosopher. E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.

E.g. This table is not an antique.

8.4 Uniform Translation

Unit Class

o A class with only one member Parameter

An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion

II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than into standard form

substantive or class terms

E.g. Some flowers are beautiful. Uniform Translation

o Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties. Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic

E.g. No warships are available for active duty argument by using parameters or other techniques.

o Reformulated: No warships are things available for

active duty. 8.5 Enthymemes

III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula “to Enthymeme

be” An argument containing an unstated proposition

E.g. All people seek recognition. An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being

o Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition. enthymematic

E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.

o Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine First-Order Enthymeme

drinkers. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition

that is taken for granted is the major premise

IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in

standard form order Second-Order Enthymeme

E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition

o Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds. that is taken for granted is the minor premise

E.g. all is well that ends well.

o Reformulated: All things that end well are things Third-Order Enthymeme

that are well. An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition

that is left unstated is the conclusion

V. Propositions having quantifiers other than “all,” “no,” and

“some” 8.6 Sorites

E.g. Every dog has its day.

o Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their Sorites

days. An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any

E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated. number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences

o Reformulated: All contributions are things that are

appreciated. 8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism

A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction

subject named and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts

E.g. Only citizens can vote. Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid

o Reformulated: All those who can vote are citizens.

E.g. None but the brave deserve the fair. Hypothetical Syllogism

o Reformulated: All those who deserve the fair are A form of argument containing at least one conditional

those who are brave. proposition as a premise.

-9–

Pure Hypothetical Syllogism With symbols, we can perform some logical operations

A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively almost mechanically, with the eye, which might otherwise

demand great effort

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism A symbolic language helps us to accomplish some

A syllogism having one conditional premise and one intellectual tasks without having to think too much

categorical premise

Modern Logic

Affirmative Mood/Modus Ponens (“to affirm”) Logicians look now to the internal structure of propositions

A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical and arguments, and to the logical links – very few in

premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional premise, number – that are critical in all deductive arguments

and the conclusion affirms its consequent No encumbered by the need to transform deductive

arguments in to syllogistic form

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent It may be less elegant than analytical syllogistics, but is

A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the more powerful

categorical premise affirms the consequent, rather than the

antecedent, of the conditional premise 9.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, & Disjunction

A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical A statement that does not contain any other statement as a

premise denies the consequent of the conditional premise, component

and the conclusion denies its antecedent

Compound Statement

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent A statement that contains another statements as a

A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the component

categorical premise denies the antecedent, rather than the 2 categories:

consequent, of the conditional premise o W/N the truth value of the compound statement is

determined wholly by the truth value of its

8.8 The Dilemma components, or determined by anything other

than the truth value of its components

Dilemma

A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it Conjunction ( )

is claimed that a choice must be made between 2 (usually A truth functional connective meaning “and”

bad) alternatives Symbolized by the dot ( )

An argumentative device in which syllogisms on the same We can form a conjunction of 2 statements by placing the

topic are combined, sometimes w/ devastative effect word “and” between them

The 2 statements combined are called conjuncts

Simple Dilemma The truth value of the conjunction of 2 statements is

The conclusion is a single categorical proposition determined wholly and entirely by the truth values of its 2

conjuncts

Complex Dilemma If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true;

The conclusion itself is a disjunction otherwise it is false

A conjunction is said to be a truth-functional component

Three Ways of Defeating a Dilemma statement, and its conjuncts are said to be truth-functional

components of it

Going/escaping between the horns of the dilemma… Note: Not every compound statement is truth-functional

Rejecting its disjunctive premise

This method is often the easiest way to evade the conclusion Truth Value

of a dilemma, for unless one half of the disjunction is the The status of any statement as true or false

explicit contradictory of the other, the disjunction may very The truth value of a true statement is true

well be false The truth value of a false statement is false

Rejecting its conjunction premise Any component of a compound statement whose

To deny a conjunction, we need only deny one of its parts replacement by another statement having the same truth

When we grasp the dilemma by the horns, we attempt to value would not change the truth value of the compound

show that at least one of the conditionals is false statement

One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed A compound statement whose truth function is wholly

to the conclusion of the original determined by the truth values of its components

Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it

should be built up out of the same ingredients (categorical Truth-Functional Connective

propositions) that the original dilemma contained Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction,

material implication, and material equivalence) between the

CHAPTER 9 components of a truth-functional compound statement.

SYMBOLIC LOGIC

Simple Statement

9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language Any statement that is not truth functionally compound

Symbols p q p q

Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments T T T

Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its T F F

essential nature and putting aside what is not essential F T F

F F F

- 10 –

Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~) In general, “p is a sufficient condition for q” is

symbolized by the tilde or curl (~) symbolized by p q

often formed by the insertion of “not” in the original

statement 9.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy

A truth-functional connective meaning “or” Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another

It has a “weak” (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge argument with the same form whose premises are known to

(v) (or “vee”), and a “strong” (exclusive) sense. e true and whose conclusion is known to be false.

2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives

To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate

p q pvq another argument that:

T T T Has exactly the same form as the first

T F T Has true premises and a false conclusion

F T T

F F F Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity

are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that

Punctuation any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid

The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which

language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning they are concerned.

In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to

apply to the smallest statement that the punctuation permits Statement Variable

A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be

9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implication substituted.

A compound statement of the form “If p then q.” An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an

Also called a hypothetical/implication/implicative statement argument, it contains statement variables, but no

Asserts that in any case in which its antecedent is true, its statements

consequent is also true

It does no assert that its antecedent is true, but only if its Substitution Instance of an Argument Form

antecedent is true, its consequent is also true Any argument that results from the consistent substitution

The essential meaning of a conditional statement is the of statements for statement variables in an argument form

relationship asserted to hold between its antecedent and

consequent Specific Form of an Argument

The argument form from which the given argument results

Antecedent (implicans/protasis) when a different simple statement is substituted for each

In a conditional statement, that component that immediately different statement variable.

follows the “if”

9.5 The Precise Meaning of “Invalid” and “Valid”

Consequent (implicate/apodosis)

In a conditional statement, the component that immediately Invalid Argument Form

follows the “then” An argument form that has at least one substitution

instance with true premises and a false conclusion

Implication

The relation that holds between the antecedent and the Valid Argument Form

consequent of a conditional statement. An argument form that has no substitution instances with

There are different kinds of implication true premises and a false conclusion

A symbol used to represent material implication, which is

common, partial meaning of all “if-then” statements Truth Table

An array on which the validity of an argument form may be

p q ~q p ~q ~ (p ~q) p q tested, through the display of all possible combinations of

the truth values of the statement variables contained in that

T T F F T T

form

T F T T F F

F T F F T T

9.7 Some Common Argument Forms

F F T F T T

Disjunctive Syllogism

Material Implication A valid argument form in which one premise is a

A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe ( ) disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two

that may connect 2 statements disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other

The statement “p materially implies q” is true when either p disjunct

is false, or q is true

pvq

p q p q ~p

T T T q

T F F

F T T

F F T p q pvq ~p

T T T F

In general, “q is a necessary condition for p” and “p only T F T F

if q” are symbolized as p q F T T T

F F F T

- 11 –

Modus Ponens Substitution Instance of Statement Form

A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and Any statement that results from the consistent substitution

in which another premise affirms the antecedent of that of statements for statement variables in a statement form

conditional, and the conclusion affirms its consequent

Specific Form of a Statement

p q The statement form from which the given statement results

p when a different simple statement is substituted

q consistently for each different statement variable

T T T A statement form that has only true substitution instances

T F F A tautology:

F T T

F F T p ~p p v ~p

T F T

Modus Tollens F T T

A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and

in which another premise denies the consequent of that Self-Contradictory Statement Form

conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent A statement form that has only false substitution instances

A contradiction

p q

~q Contingent Form

~p A statement form that has both true and false substitution

instances

p q p q ~q ~p

T T T F F Peirce’s Law

T F F T F A tautological statement of the form [(p q) p] p

F T T F T

Materially Equivalent ( )

F F T T T

A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements

connected by the three-bar sign ( ) have the same truth

Hypothetical Syllogism

value

A valid argument containing only conditional propositions

p q p q p q

q r T T T

p r T F F

F T F

p Q r p q q r p r F F T

T T T T T T

T T F T F F Biconditional Statement

T F T F T T A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component

statements imply one another and therefore are materially

T F F F T F

equivalent

F T T T T T

F T F T F T

The Four Truth-Functional Connective

F F T T T T

Truth- Symbol Proposition Names of

F F F T T T

Functional (Name of Type Components of

Connective Symbol) Propositions of

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent that Type

A formal fallacy in which the 2 nd premise of an argument

And (dot) Conjunction Conjuncts

affirms the consequent of a conditional premise and the

Or V (wedge) Disjunction Disjuncts

conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent

If…then (horseshoe) Conditional Antecedent,

p q

consequent

q

p If and only if (tribar) Biconditional Components

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent is omitted here

A formal fallacy in which the 2 nd premise of an argument

denies the antecedent of a conditional premise and the Note: To say that an argument form is valid if, and only if, its

conclusion of the argument denies its consequent expression in the form of a conditional statement is a tautology.

~p

~q Logically Equivalent

Two statements for which the statement of their material

Note: In determining whether any given argument is valid, we must equivalence is tautology

look into the specific form of the argument in question they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one

another

9.8 Statement Forms & Material Equivalence

Double Negation

Statement Form An expression of logical equivalence between a symbol and

An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of a the negation of the negation of that symbol

statement

It contains statement variables but no statements

- 12 –

T

p ~p ~~p p ~~p

T F T T 9 RULES OF INFERENCE:

F T F T ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS

NAME ABBREV. FORM

Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent. 1. Modus Ponens M.P. p q

p

Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be q

true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it 2. Modus Tollens M.T. p q

connects ~q

~p

Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a 3. Hypothetical Syllogism H.S. p q

relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional q r

Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely p r

impossible for them to have different truth values. 4. Disjunctive Syllogism D.S pvq

~p

p q pvq ~(p v q) ~p ~q ~p ~q ~(p v q) (~p ~q) q

T T T F F F F T 5. Constructive Dilemma C.D. (p q) (r s)

T F T F F T F T pvr

F T T F T F F T qvs

F F F T T T T T 6. Absorption Abs. p q

p (p q)

De Morgan’s Theorems 7. Simplification Simp. p q

Two useful logical equivalences p

o (1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements 8. Conjunction Conj. p

is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the q

negations of the 2 disjuncts p q

o (2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements 9. Addition Add. p

is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the pvq

negations of the 2 conjuncts

If any statement is true, it is true. The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace

Every statement of the form p p must be true each other

o Every such statement is a tautology Note: this is very different from that of substitution

Principle of Noncontradiction

No statement can be both true and false RULES OF REPLACEMENT:

Every statement of the form p ~p must be false LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS

o Every such statement is self-contradictory NAME ABBREV. FORM

10. De Morgan‟s De M.

Principle of Excluded Middle ~(p q) (~ p v ~q)

Theorem

Every statement is either true or false

Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true ~(p v q) (~ p ~q)

Every such statement is a tautology 11. Commutation Com.

(p v q) (q v p)

CHAPTER 10 (p q) (q p)

METHODS OF DEDUCTION 12. Association Assoc.

[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r]

10.1 Formal Proof of Validity [p (q r)] [(p q) r]

13. Distribution Dist.

Rules of Inference [p (q v r)] [(p q) (p r)]

The rules that permit valid inferences from statements

[p v (q r)] [(p v q) (p v r)]

assumed as premises

14. Double D.N.

Negation p ~~ p

Natural Deduction

A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument 15. Transpor- Trans.

tation (p q) (~q ~p)

by using the rules of inference

Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the 16. Material Imp.

Implication (p q) (~p v q)

validity of an argument that is valid

17. Material Equiv.

Equivalence (p q) [(p q) (q p)]

Formal Proof of Validity

A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise (p q) [(p q) v (~p ~q)]

of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of 18. Exportation Exp.

inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such [(p q) r] [p (q r)]

that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of 19. Tautology Taut.

p (p v p)

the argument whose validity is being proved

p (p p)

Elementary Valid Argument

Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves

as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a formal

proof of validity

- 13 –

The 19 Rules of Inference circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than would be

The list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a complete system possible without it

of truth-functional logic, in the sense that it permits the

construction of a formal proof of validity for any valid truth- 10.6 Shorter Truth-Table Technique

functional argument

The first 9 rules can be applied only to whole lines of a proof Shorter Truth-Table Technique

Any of the last 10 rules can be applied either to whole lines or An argument may be tested by assigning truth values

to parts of lines showing that, if it is valid, assigning values that would make

the conclusion false while the premises are true would lead

The notion of formal proof is an effective notion inescapably to inconsistency

It can be decided quite mechanically, in a finite number of Proving the validity of an argument with this shorter truth

steps, whether or not a given sequence of statements table technique is one version of the use of reductio ad

constitutes a formal proof absurdum – but instead of suing the rules of inference, it

No thinking is required uses truth value assignments

Only 2 things are required: Its easiest application is when F is assigned to a disjunction

o The ability to see that a statement occurring in one (in which case both of the disjuncts must be assigned) or T

place is precisely the same as a statement occurring to a conjunction (in which case both of the conjuncts must

in another be assigned)

o The ability to see W/N a given statement has a o When assignments to simple statements are thus

certain pattern; that is , to see if it is a substitution forced, the absurdity (if there is one) is quickly

instance of a given statement form exposed

Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most

The making of a truth table is completely mechanical efficient in testing the validity of a deductive argument

There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal

proofs CHAPTER 11

Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its QUANTIFICATION THEORY

validity is much easier than the purely mechanical

construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or 11.1 The Need for Quantification

thousands of rows

Quantification

10.3 Proof of Invalidity A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical

structure of propositions.

Invalid Arguments

For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity 11.2 Singular Propositions

An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one

row of its truth table in which all its premises are true but its Affirmative Singular Proposition

conclusion is false A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has

We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an some specified attribute

argument‟s invalidity: the discovery of a single row in which

its premises are all true and its conclusion is false will suffice Individual Constant

A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual

10.4 Inconsistency

Individual Variable

Note: A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant

If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true

and the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid Propositional Function

Any argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid An expression that contains an individual variable and

Any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless becomes a statement when an individual constant is

of what its conclusion may be substituted for the individual variable

Inconsistent statements cannot both be true A propositional function having some true and some false

“Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus” (Untrustworthy in one substitution instances, each of which is an affirmative

thing, untrustworthy in all) singular proposition

Inconsistent statements are not “meaningless”; their trouble

is just the opposite. They mean too much. They mean 11.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

everything, in the sense of implying everything. And if

everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false, Universal Quantifier

because every statement has a denial A symbol (x) used before a propositional function to assert

that the predicate following is true of everything

10.5 Indirect Proof of Validity

Generalization

Indirect Proof of Validity The process of forming a proposition from a propositional

An indirect proof of validity is written out by stating as an function by placing a universal quantifier or an existential

additional assumed premise the negation of the conclusion quantifier before it

A version of reductio ad absurdum (reducing the absurd) –

with which an argument can be proved valid by exhibiting the Existential Quantifier

contradiction which may be derived from its premises A symbol “( x)” indicating that the propositional function

augmented by the assumption of the denial of its conclusion that follows has at least one true substitution instance.

An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a given step

is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof Instantiation

had been made The process of forming a proposition from a propositional

This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for function by substituting an individual constant for its

testing arguments by making it possible, in some individual variable

- 14 –

Normal-Form Formula

A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple

predicates

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any

substitution instance of a propositional function from its

universal quantification

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of a

universally quantified expression from an expression that is

given as true of any arbitrarily selected individual

A rule of inference that permits (with restrictions) the valid

inference of the truth of a substitution instance (for any

individual constant that appears nowhere earlier in the

context) from the existential quantification of a propositional

function

A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of the

existential quantification of a propositional function from any

true substitution instance of that function

UI (x) ( x) Any substitution instance

v of a propositional

Universal (where v is any function can be validly

Instantiation individual symbol) inferred from its

universal quantification

UG y From the substitution

(x) ( x) instance of a

(where y denotes propositional function

any arbitrarily with respect to the name

Universal selected individual) of any arbitrarily selected

Generalization individual, one may

validly infer the universal

quantification of that

propositional function

EI ( x)( x) From the existential

v quantification of a

(where v is any propositional function,

individual we may infer the truth of

Existential constant, other its substitution instance

Instantiation than y, having no with respect to any

previous individual constant (other

occurrence in the than y) that occurs

context) nowhere earlier in the

context.

EG v From any true

( x)( x) substitution instance of a

(where v is any propositional function,

Existential individual we may validly infer the

Generalization constant) existential quantification

of that propositional

function.

Asyllogistic Arguments

Arguments containing one or more propositions more

logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O

propositions

- Critique EssayEnviado porTaylor Weathers
- Alf Ross - Tu-TuEnviado porsagararun
- Ten Tips on Writing a Good Theory of Knowledge by Nick AlchinEnviado porEvgeny Dimitrov
- Selected slides-Reasoning1.pdfEnviado porWai-Yen Chan
- Sanders ENG 103 Fall 2011Enviado pormichael_daly1842
- Bcom275 Week 4 Dq 1Enviado porWellThisIsDifferent
- Four Types of Essay_ Expository, Persuasive, Analytical, ArgumentativeEnviado porgollakoti
- The Paper 1 Bible-PHartEnviado porRaul Girbal
- Critical ReadingEnviado porBarira Faisal Khan
- Studio VI Making ArumentsEnviado porHope Williams
- PropositionsEnviado porEman Nolasco
- Rules Of Syllogism.pdfEnviado porchaostheorist
- Writing at Postgraduate Level - Critical Reading and WritingEnviado porRonnan Hussain
- GMAT AA6分模板 by Sophia Yu92Enviado porLouis Jincheng Xu
- EssayEnviado porTao Do
- Essay Writing GuideEnviado porAlistair Lees
- For and AgainstEnviado porGabriiela Diaz
- Summary for CTEnviado porChieng37
- Review Writing GuidelinesEnviado porMaurelle Lambert
- Debate StructureEnviado porHera Bagio
- Hand Aka Fund a Cat Video ListEnviado porRishabh Gupta
- HandaKaFundaCATVideoList (1)Enviado porYash Kalyani
- helpful expressionsEnviado porapi-314042890
- argument_MST5 - CópiaEnviado porHugo
- reading 1 sp.pptxEnviado portati
- Critical Review_ in or OutEnviado porkhongvanlam
- philo 103 section 1 2Enviado porapi-196193978
- reflectionEnviado porapi-236043906
- Analytical WritingEnviado porashish7185
- reflection 7 2Enviado porapi-399436777

- 14033088 CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER Padilla Cases and Notes Ortega NotesEnviado porNowhere Man
- Mammography CMEEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- ETHICS - CASES Batch 1 (Consolidated)Enviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Legal FormsEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Criminal Law 1Enviado porhanasadako
- Agpalo Notes 2003Enviado porducati99d3
- indiana homeschool lawsEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- ACCOUNTABILITY OF PO_ART_XI_5_19_17.pdfEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- DRRM Act Primer.pdfEnviado porBajunaid Malaco
- Codal Guide for Rpc Book IIEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Recit.pdfEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- ADONIS-reviewer-2_printed.pdfEnviado porDarren Sulit
- Political LawEnviado porjaine0305
- Idem Crimpro Riano Part1Enviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Case Digests 28-35 PersonsEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- College of LawEnviado porjex
- Top law firmsEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Riano Notes 21-61Enviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Envi Law Rules of Procedure.pdfEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- 3 CSC v CortesEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Csc vs CortesEnviado porRichard Tabigne
- argosinoEnviado porRaeesah Midtimbang Bantuas
- Political LawEnviado porcarlavillanueva
- AM No. 03-03-03-SC, 1 July 2003Enviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- Utopia Consti Reviewer 2010 Part I Version 3[1]Enviado porMar Sayos Dales
- HW_1 Envi LawEnviado porKirstie Marie Saldo
- 244970380-Legal-Technique-and-Logic-Reviewer-SIENNA-FLORES.pdfEnviado porcashielle arellano
- RA 9522Enviado porKirstie Marie Saldo

- ECE R94Enviado porAnurag Singh Patel
- types of government.docxEnviado porKelaL.Managay
- [123doc.vn] Giao an Tieng Anh Lop 6 Unit 3 at Home Lesson 2 a3 4 PotEnviado porHoa Ly
- Article Seaways MagazineEnviado porjanja_prižmić
- 4 10 BulletinEnviado porteoakpark
- COMM231 A#6 Rewrite.docxEnviado porRebecca Toporoff
- r 288 z 74 ApplicationformEnviado porrahul
- mora.pdfEnviado porIqra Jawed
- Project Scope ManagementEnviado porDhan
- Indiana Guard Reserve Awards & Decorations (JFHQIN-IGR Regulation 10-4)Enviado porHerbert Hillary Booker 2nd
- 91513-FFMEnviado porcaxap
- Range Officer GuideEnviado porcoachhand
- eng220syllabus catstaleyEnviado porapi-285288547
- label writing assignmentEnviado porapi-237246568
- Miller FinalEnviado porNikhil Pal
- ATSP 2016-2025 - Final Print Version.pdfEnviado porAiraMae
- The DolphinEnviado pordolphingrlz
- Bilingual EducationEnviado poroanadragan
- Pune Tourism Base Map A0Enviado porbakulesh
- ZumbroShopper15.05.27Enviado porKristina Hicks
- Mr. Sameer Article -2.2.docxEnviado porAnonymous JkVe4HpC
- Aleister Crowley - Writings on - DutyEnviado porDiego Guimarães
- Civil Air Patrol News - Nov 2009Enviado porCAP History Library
- think centre rescue recoveryEnviado porfcjjcf
- eliyahu20messageEnviado porapi-231781675
- Combat Engineer Handbook PDFEnviado porDavid
- 18. Vision IAS CSP 2016 Test 18 Q.pdfEnviado porPremMehta
- ASSIGNMENT (1).docxEnviado porASHA R NAIR
- Mag Trace CostsEnviado porCityStink Augusta
- 10 Sentence Patterns - KoreanEnviado porJade Lai