Você está na página 1de 14

-1–

CHAPTER 1 Classical Logic


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.

Simple Proposition Relations Between Truth and Validity:


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.

1.3 Arguments Notes:


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.‟

Inductive Argument Informative Discourse


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

Invalid Argument Expressive Discourse


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:

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions Definiens


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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

1. Definitions by example CHAPTER 5


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

4.5 Intension and Intensional Definitions Informal 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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

Poisoning the Well Fallacies of Ambiguity (sophisms)


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.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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)

6.1 The Theory of Deduction Quantity


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

2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions) 6.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition


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.

4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions Contradictories


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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

The validity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form.


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.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

VI. Exclusive Propositions, using “only or “none but” Disjunctive 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.

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


-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

Modus Tollens (“to deny”) Simple Statement


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

Taking/grasping the dilemma by its horns… Truth-Functional Component


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

Devising a counterdilemma… Truth-Functional Compound 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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


- 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

Disjunction/Alteration (v) 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.

Conditional Statement Argument Form


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

Horseshoe ( ) 9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables


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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


- 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

p q p q Tautologous Statement Form


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

Note: “Not” is not a connective, but is a truth-function operator, so it


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 9.9 Logic Equivalence


~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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


- 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

9.10 The Three “Laws of Thought” 10.2 The Rule of Replacement

Principle of Identity Rule of Replacement


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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


- 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

Inconsistency Simple Predicate


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

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC


- 14 –

11.4 Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions

Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple
predicates

11.5 Proving Validity

Universal Instantiation (UI)


A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any
substitution instance of a propositional function from its
universal quantification

Universal Generalization (UG)


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

Existential Instantiation (EI)


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

Existential Generalization (EG)


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

Rules of Inference: Quantification


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.

11.6 Proving Invalidity

11.7 Asyllogistic Inference

Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more
logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O
propositions

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC