LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

Urdaneta City University

URDANETA CITY UNIVERSITY
SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
COURSE SYLLABUS IN LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

CHAPTER 5: DEFINITION

We have learned that some terms have more than one meaning, and unless the terms are properly
defined, there will certainly be misconceptions. To avoid ambiguity and verbal dispute, we must define our
terms. To define a term is to explain its meaning. In a definition, the term to be defined is called
definiendum while the defining term is called definiens. In this example, Man is a rational animal, the
definiendum is man and the definiens is rational animal. The definiens, however, is not the meaning of the
definiendum, but a symbol which has the same meaning as the definiendum. In a diagram, this is what we
have:

Definition Definiendum (term to be defined)

Definiens (defining term)

Types of Definition

We have two main divisions of definition: the nominal and the real. We present their nature and
subdivisions.

A. Nominal definition

Nominal definition expresses what the name means, not what the thing is. It circumscribes the precise
meaning of a given word without going into its real nature. Nominal definition is required when a new term
is introduced into the vocabulary, or if one wants to clarify the meaning of an ambiguous term. There are
three kinds of nominal definition:

1. Ostensive (demonstrative) definition - indicates the meaning of a term by showing or pointing at the
object (from the Latin ostendere meaning to point or to show). This type of definitionis often used when
the term is difficult to define verbally. One may explain the meaning of a “table,” for instance, by
pointing at it.

Example:

If asked what a “ballpen” is, one may get a ballpen and show it.
A person may attempt to answer the question, “What does waltz mean?” by dancing it.
Asked about an asterisk, one may draw it: (*).
“What is a dollar?” It is (＄).
Proper names are also defined ostensively; one may point to Pope Francis’ picture if asked who
our Pope is.

As seen from the given examples, ostensive definition is a nonlinguistic method of defining a term, and
is considered by many logicians as the fundamental or primitive type of definition.

2. Synonymous definition - gives the same connotation of the term. The definition is so exact as to
replace the one with the other in any context without shift in meaning.

Example:

“Contraband” for instance, is defined as smuggling.

One may say “sobriquet” to mean nickname.
“Boo-boo” means mistake.
1
“Cordial” means friendly.
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Synonymous definition can also be a translation: “Nota bene” means a note well.
“Agua” means water.

3. Etymological definition - gives the origin of the word. Examples:

“Polygamy” (poly, many; gamos, marriage) means many marriages.

“Polyandry” (andros, man) is when a woman has more than one husband.
“Polygyny” (gyny, woman) is when a man has more than one wife.
“Centipede” (centum, hundred; pedis, foot) is an arthropod with a hundred feet.
“Millepede” (mille, thousand; pedis, foot) is an arthropod with a thousand feet.

B. Real definition

Real definition tells us what the thing is. It digs deeper into the nature of a thing of which we somehow
have a vague knowledge. All real definitions are nominal defintions, but not vice-versa. While nominal
definition allows us to identify the term under consideration, real definition clarifies the question regarding
its nature. Real definition is subdivided into two categories: essential and non-essential.

1. Essential defintion - it is a definition that is constructed by genus and specific difference. Examples:

Man is a rational animal. This is a definition of man by its genus and specific difference. Man
belongs to the genus animal and is distinguished from other species belonging to that genus by
rationality.
Triangle is a polygon with three sides. The term polygon refers to a general class that contains
triangles as a subclass; the term with three sides refers to the distinguishing mark that sets it apart
from other polygons.

2. Non-essential (descriptive) definition - gives the more notable characteristics of a thing. Here are its
subdivisions:

a. Distinctive definition - (definition by property) gives the natural chracteristics of a thing that
follows necessarily from the essence of a thing.

Man is capable of distinguishing what is morally right and what is morally wrong.
Oxygen is a gas 1.105 times as heavy as air.
A triangle has interior angles equal to two right angles.

b. Genetic definition - furnishes the mode of the origin of a thing. It describes how something is
produced. Examples:

Jeep comes from GP, meaning General Purpose which was the original Army designation for
the now-famous vehicle.
Circle is formed by revolving a line in plane reaching one of its ends.
Earthquake is the trembling of the land surface due to the faulting of the rocks.
Tsunami is a long high sea wave caused by underwater earthquake.
Sneeze is a sudden involuntary expulsion of air from the nose and mouth caused by irritation
of the nostrils.

c. Causal definition - describes a thing by its efficient and final cause.

1. Definition by Efficient Cause - gives the producer of a thing. Examples:

Caesar salad is invented by a Mexican chef Caesar Cardini (contrary to popular belief, it
was not named after or invented by Julius Caesar).
Web page is a virtual page made by a webmaster.
Les Miserables is written by Victor Hugo.
2
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Fallopian tube is named after Italian Gabrielle Fallopius.

2. Definition by Final Cause - gives the purpose or end on account of which a thing is
produced. Examples:

Magnet is a piece of iron that attracts/repels iron.

Oratory is a chapel for private devotion.
Marriage is a natural institution for communion of persons and for procreation.

d. Accidental definition - explains a thing by giving characteristics that are contingently connected
with it. The color of the human hair is an accident, for it belongs in no way to the essence of
humanity. Other examples:

The school uniform is multi-colored.

A car speed is 130kph.
Tony Blair is a fine gentleman.

Rules of A Good Definition

Definitions can go wrong at times. To avoid committing bad definitions, here are the rules that govern
the construction of good definitions.

 A definition should avoid vagueness and ambiguity. A highly theoretical definition and figurative
language must be avoided. Definition must be presented in a language an average person is likely to
understand. It must, therefore, be user-friendly. Definitions have to be written for potential users taking
their knowledge and background into account. Definitions that are written for a lower level might not
draw sophisticated distinctions that a proficient used needs, while a higher level definition might not
suit the needs of inexperienced people. Further, definitions must not be misleading. Those that do not
satisfy this criterion are said to be either obscure or figurative.

Example of Obscure Definitions

Obligation is the deontic service one must give the other.

Disjunction is a truth-functionally compound proposition which disjuncts called atomic
components are interposed by the binary connective called wedge.
Net is the reticulated fabric decussated at regular intervals with interstices and intersections. -
Samuel Johnson

Example of Figurative Definitions

Divorce is the future of tense of marriage.

Eternity is the first sixty seconds of a blind date.
A fact is anything that rubs the corners off our prejudice.
Bachelor is one who wants a wife but is glad he hasn’t got her (H. L. Mencken)
Experience is the name men give to their mistakes. (O. Wilde)
Friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies.
Philosopher is a fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead.
Smile is a curve that can set a lot of things straight.
Wedding is a device for exciting envy in women and terror in men.

 Definition should not be circular. It should not use the defined term as part of its definition. Most
circular definitions give us little or no information at all and should be avoided for that reason.
Examples:

A shopkeeper is a keeper of a shop.

3
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
A lamppost is a post of a lamp.
A hair pin is a pin of the hair.
A painter is anyone who paints.

Definition should not be needlessly negative. As a rule, opposition is not an adequate way of defining
terms. A definition must state what a thing is, not what a thing is not. Definition should not be negative
when it could be affirmative. Examples:

Heaven is not hell.

Soprano is the opposite of an alto.
An adolescent is neither a child nor an adult.
Antipathy is the antonym of sympathy.

Take a look at these definitions: the first is affirmative, the second negative.

Silence is quietude.
Silence is the absence of noise.

Negative definition, however, is correctly employed when it refers to a privation as in this example:

A blind man is one that cannot see.

A crippled man is one that cannot walk.

This definition is likewise valid if applied to realities we do not know well: God is a Being that is not
caused.

 Definition must be precise, i.e., it must not be too narrow or too broad. A definition is too narrow if it
prevents us from applying a term to all of the things to which it can be applied. A definition is too broad
if it allows us to apply a term to things to which it cannot be applied. In short, if a definition is too
broad, the defining term includes too much; if it is too narrow, the defining term includes too little. To
satisfy the criterion for a good definition, the defining term must be precise.

Definitions that are too broad.

Examples:

A square is a four-sided polygon. (The definition of a square as four-sided is too broad since it
allows us to refer to rectangle and rhombus and diamond that are not square.
A cat is a domestic animal. (There are domestic animals other than cats like dogs, birds, hamster.)
Knife is an instruments for cutting. (Many instruments other than knives are used for cutting like
scissors, nailcutters.)
Jupiter is a planet. (There are may other planets, name them.)
Automobile is any vehicle that has wheels. (This would include golf carts and even wheelchairs.)

Definitions that are too narrow.

Examples:

A woman is a married mother. (This definition as a married mother prevents us from applying the
term to females that are not married.
A doctor is a surgeon. (It excludes those who specialize on other fields of medicine such as
obstetrician, pediatrician, and those who hold a doctorate.)
A bird is a feathered egg-laying animal. (It excludes male birds.)
Firecracker is a high-powered explosive firework. (It excludes other fireworks that do not have
violent blast triangle, fountain and baby dynamite, among others.)
CHAPTER 6: JUDGMENT AND PROPOSITION 4
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Judgment is a mental operation that pronounces the agreement or disagreement between two ideas.
The mind compares a “square” and a “polygon”. Recognizing the identity between these two ideas, it
pronounces this judgment, “A square is a polygon”, or comparing a “table” and a “chair”, the mind
enunciates that “A table is not a chair.”

Elements of a Judgment

1. Understanding of each of the ideas about which a judgment is to be made. “Square” and “polygon”
are the two ideas to be apprehended.

2. A comparison of the two ideas in question, i.e., the recognition of the identity or non-identity
between these ideas.

A square is a polygon having four equal sides and four right angles. From the given definition of
each idea, a common denominator between the two is set: that of having angles and sides. The
identity of the two ideas is thus established.

3. The mental act pronouncing that the ideas compared are in agreement or diagreement. This act is
the very essence of a judgment. The mind enunciates that, “A square is a polygon.”

The Constituents of a Proposition

As ideas are expressed in the concrete through the use of terms, judgment is expressed in the concrete
through the use of proposition. When judgment is expressed in words, we use proposition. A proposition is
a linguistic expression or the sensible sign of the judgment.

A proposition has three elements: subject, predicate and copula. The subject and the predicate are
called the matter because they are the materials or ingredients out of which the proposition is made. The
copula is the form for it is the unifying principle that gives the structure of a proposition.

Proposition and Sentence

A proposition is a sentence; a sentence, however, is not always a proposition. Why is that? Some
sentences do not explicitly affirm that something is or is not; for this reason, they are neither true nor false.
This is the case with;

Interrogative sentence: “How are you?” which calls for a response.

Imperative sentence: “Shut the door!” that gives a command.
Request sentence: “Please, get the paper!” which expresses a request.
Exclamatory sentence: “Yahoo!” that expresses an emotion.
Proposal: “Let’s have dinner.”
Instruction: “Encircle the correct answer.”
Prayer: “Dear God, grant me wisdom to pass this subject.”
Greeting: “Happy Birthday!”
Declarative sentence: “The professor is present.” This sentence is the only considered a proposition
because it is only kind of sentence that is either true or false.

Categorical Proposition

A categorical proposition is that which gives a direct assertion of agreement or disagreement between
the subject term and the predicate term. It is likewise called simple proposition. A compound proposition, on
the other hand, is composed of several simple propositions.

The Standard-Form Categorical Proposition 5

MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
A standard-form categorical proposition contains the quantifier, the subject term, the predicate term
and the copula. Example:

“All problems are challenges.”

In this example, the quantifier is all, the subject term is problems, the copula is are and the predicate
term is challenges.

The Quantifier

The quantifier indicates the degree of universality (quantity) of the subject. A universal proposition is
that which takes the subject in the entirety of its extension.

“All schizophrenics are mentally challenged.”

A particular proposition limits the extension.

“Some schizophrenics are mentally challenged.”

A singular proposition restricts it to an individual subject. “John Nash is schizophrenic.”

The Universal Quantifier

A universal quantification makes use of all, every, any and other words of similar import for affirmative
propositions; and words such as no, none and other words parallel to these for negative propositions.
Example:

“All books are reading materials.”

This means that every single book is a reading material. Symbolic logic usually gives a hypothetical
meaning to this universal proposition.

“All books are reading materials,” would be rendered as:

“If something is a book, then it is a reading material.”

This proposition does not mean that all books taken collectively are reading materials, as is meant by
the word “all” in “All books in the shelf are over 100 in number.” This latter proposition does not refer to
each book but to all books in the shelf collectively. In the former, the universal quantifier is taken
distributively, not collectively.

It is important to note that a singular proposition, i.e., one whose subject term applies to a single
individual only, as in this example, “Barack Obama is the first African-black President of the United States
of America,” is regarded as universal in that the singular subject may be treated as a class having only one
member, and therefore including all of its members.

The Particular Quantifier

A particular quantification makes use of words such as some, at least one, most, almost all, the
majority and words of similar import for particular propositions. These particualr quantifiers claim that at
least one member of the class denominated by the subject term is a member (or non-member) of the class
denominated by the predicate term. The example:

“Some students are scholars.” means that, “At least one student is a scholar.”

Subject Term and Predicate Term

6
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
The subject term is that about which something is affirmed or denied; the predicate term is that which
is affirmed or denied of the subject term. Both constitute the matter of the proposition. Example:

“Some preachers are lay people.”

The subject term is “some preachers” and the predicate term is “lay people.”

The Copula

The copula is the linking verb is (am, are, was, were) and is not (am not, are not, was not, were not)
indicating the agreement or disagreement between the subject term and the predicate term. The degree of
agreement or disagreement is determined by the quantifier of the proposition. It is the copula gives the
form of the proposition.

The standard-form categorical proposition is, therefore, one that follows the subject-copula-predicate
arrangement. Example:

“All stockholders are businessmen.”

The subject term (S) is “all stockholders” (including the quantifier), the copula is “are” and the
predicate term is “businessmen”. It has to be noted that in grammar, the copula is included in the predicate.
In Logic, however, the copula is regarded as a distinct part of a proposition.

Non-Standard Form Categorical Proposition

While some propositions fulfill the requirements for the standard-form categorical proposition, others
are expressed in a way other than the standard. These propositions, however, can be translated into a
standard one. Example:

Non-Standard Form Categorical Propositions

1. The guest came.

2. Italians like a hug.
3. Scorpions have many legs.
4. Only legitimate children can have inheritance.
5. Black ants do not bite.
6. Telephone operators are generally cordial.
7. Whoever follows the will of God will have eternal life.
8. If you work, then you’ll eat.
9. Finders, keepers.

Standard-Form Categorical Propositions

1. All guests are those who came.

2. All Italians are people who like to hug.
3. All scorpions are creatures that have many legs.
4. All children that can have inheritance are the legitimate children.
5. All black ants are insects that do not bite.
6. Some telephone operators are cordial people.
7. All people who follow the will of God are persons who will have eternal life.
8. All those persons who work are those persons who’ll eat.
9. All persons who find anything are person who can keep what they found.

Quality of the Categorical Proposition

7
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
The quality of a proposition is the relation established between the two terms of the proposition. If
there is an agreement between the two terms, then the proposition is affirmative (the predicate is affirmed
of the subject); if there is disagreement, then the proposition is negative (the predicate is denied of the
subjects). Examples:

1. All deep-thinkers are philosophers. (affirmative)

2. Some capitalists are greedy. (affirmative)
3. An angel is not a devil. (negative)
4. Some films are not well crafted. (negative)

As it can be seen, it is copula that determines the quality of a proposition. While there are propositions
whose subject or predicate, or both subject and predicate are negative, their quantity is still determined by
their copula. Take the following examples:
1. “His fidelity to his wife is unquestionable”. While the predicate term “unquestionable” is
negative form, the proposition is nevertheless affirmative because of the copula “is” which is
affirmative.
2. “Unreciprocated love is painful”. While the subject term is “unreciprocated love” is negative in
form, the proposition is nevetheless affirmative becuase of the copula “is” which is affirmative.
3. “That the accused is not guilty is uncertain”. The complete subject is “that the accused is not
guilty” and the predicate is “uncertain”. While both of the subject term and predicate term are
negative in form, the proposition is nevertheless affirmative because of the copula “is” which is
affirmative.

Quantity of the Categorical Proposition

The quantity of a proposition refers to the number of individuals to whom the subject term applies. If
the proposition has a universal quantifier, it is a universal proposition. If the proposition has a particular
quantifier, it is a particular proposition.

Quality and Quantity Combined

From the combination of quality and quantity, we derive four standard forms of categorical
propositions. The vowels A, E, I and O are used to represent each proposition. (Note: These letters were
taken from the Latin words AfIrmo and nEgO which mean “I affirm” and “I negate” respectively.)

A - Universal / Singular Affirmative Propositions

Example: “All gymnasts are graceful in their movements.”

E - Universal / Singular Negative Propositions

Example: “No gymnasts are graceful in their movements.”

I - Particular-Affirmative Propositions
Example: “Some gymnasts are graceful in their movements.”

O - Particular-Negative Propositions
Example: “Some gymnasts are not graceful in their movements.”

Note: Singular propositions present a difficulty. Usually they were regarded as universal propositions since
they can only be true of a single object, and thus true of all the objects they possibly can be true of. 8
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University

Given here are examples for each kind of categorical propositions:

A - Propositions: 1. All war veterans are heroes.

2. Cardinal Tagle is the Archbishop of Manila.
3. When God closes the door, He opens the window.
4. Truth is its own imperative.
5. Each decision is bound to meet some measure of approval and protest.

E - Propositions: 1. No marriage is pain-proof.

2. All angels are not material.
3. Nothing precious is forever.
4. Rene Descartes is not an existentialist.
5. Parenting is not an unfortunate job.

I - Propositions: 1. Many graduates are employed.

2. Some questions are difficult to answer.
3. At least one participant is a foreigner.
4. A gem mined is sparkling.
5. Only bank depositors can borrow money.

O - Propositions: 1. Some wounds were not healed.

2. Most crimes are not premeditated.
3. Not all advertisements are deceptive.
4. At least one government official is not corrupt.
5. Many rumors were not factual.

The Distribution (Quantity) of Terms

The distribution of terms expresses the ways in which terms can occur in a categorical proposition. A
term is distributed if it refers to all members of the class designated by the term; otherwise, it is
undistributed.

A - Proposition

“All roses are flowers.”

The universal affirmative can be represented as a class within another; the class of roses is included in
the class of flowers. Thus, the quantity of the subject term is universal (distributed). Only some members of
the class of flowers, however, are included in the whole class of roses. Therefore, the quantity of the
predicate term is particular (undistributed). We put it simply this way: “All roses (universal) are flowers
(particular)”. This can also be written this way: All S is p (where the upper-case letter signifies universal
extension and the lower-case letter particular extension).

E - Proposition

“No chairs are tables.”

The universal negative proposition can be represented as two classes separated from each other. The
subject term “chairs” and the predicate term “tables” have nothing in common and each totally excludes9
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
the other. We are in effect saying that the whole members of the class of chairs are totally outside of the
entire class of tables, and also that no members of the class of tables are members of the class of chairs.
Therefore, both the subject and the predicate are universal (distributed) because of the mutual exclusionof
two terms. So we write: “No chairs (universal) are tables (universal)”. Or: No S is P.

I - Proposition

“Some artists are painters.”

The particular affirmative proposition can be represented as two overlapping classes with at least one
common member in the common area. In this example, the subejct term “some artists” refers only to some
members of the predicate term “painters”. The proposition refers neither to all artists nor to all painters but
only to artists who are painters and to painters that are artists. Thus, only a part of the class of artists is a
part of the class of painters. We therefore, have this: “Some artists (particular) are painters (particular)”. Or:
Some s is p. The assertion that “Some s is p”, however, does not imply that “Some s is not p”. That is the part
of the indefinite nature of the assertion.

O - Proposition

“Some lawyers are not liars.”

The particular negative proposition can be represented as two overlapping classes with members in the
indicated area, not within the overlap. The proposition claims that some members of the class of lawyers
are excluded from all the members of the class of liars. Or, we can say that the class of liars excludes some
members of the class of lawyers. Simply put: “Some lawyers (particular) are not liars (universal)”. Or: Some s
is not P. From this discussion on the distribution of terms, we state the following rules:

Quantity of the Subject Term

- the subject of universal proposition is always universal.
- the subject of particular proposition is always particular.

Quantity if the Predicate Term

- the predicate of an affirmative proposition is always particular.
- the predicate of a negative proposition is always universal.

Logical Opposition of Proposition

Just as some concepts include other concepts in their connotation, there are some whose connotation
excludes other concepts. This mutual exclusivity between concepts is called logical opposition. Logical
opposition of proposition refers to the different relations that exist between propositions having the same
subject and predicate but differing in quantity or quality, or both. Let’s present the opposition in schematic
form known as the Square of Opposition.

SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
A Contraries E 10
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Superaltern Superaltern
C S
O E
N I
T R
R O
A T
D C
I
D C
A T
R O
T R
N I
O E
C
S
Subcontraries
I O
Subaltern Subaltern
Types of Logical Opposition

1. Contradiction - a relation which exists between propositions that differ both in quantity and quality. (A
and O, E and I propositions are contradictories.)

2. Contrariety - a relation which exists between universal propositions that differ in quality only. (A and E
propositions are contraries.)

3. Subcontrariety - a relation which exists between particular propositions that differ in quality only. (I and O
propositions are subcontraries.)

4. Subalternation - a relation that exists between two propositions having the same quality but differing in
quantity. (A and I, E and O propositions are subalterns.) It is the only relation where it matters which of the
pair of propositions one begins with:

- The universal proposition is the superaltern.

- The particular proposition is the subaltern.

The Laws of Logical Opposition

How do we determine the truth-value of these propositions? Suppsoing we have this proposition, “All
male chauvinists are insecure persons.” How do we account for the truth-value of its contrary, “No male
chauvinists are insecure people” if the former is true and false?

For any subject and predicate, these rules apply:

1. At least one of the universal propositions must be false.

2. Contradictory propositions have opposite truth values.
3. Universal propositions entail their subalterns.
4. At least one of the particular propositions must be true.
Laws of Contrariety
11
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Contrary opposition is one which exists between two universal propositions that differ only in quality. A
and E propositions are contraries.

- If one is true, the other is false. (Contraries cannot be both true.)

- If one is false, the other is doubtful, i.e., either true or false. (Contraries may be both false.)

Examples:

a. A - All diamonds are gems. True

E - No diamonds are gems. False (Diamonds cannot be gems and not gems at the same time.)

b. E - No apples are mangoes. True

A - All apples are mangoes. False (Since we affirmed that there are no apples that are mangoes,
how can we say that there is an apple that is a mango also?)

c. A - All flowers are roses. False

E - No flowers are roses. False

d. E - No Bikolanos are Filipinos. False

A - All Bikolanos are Filipinos. True

In (c) and (d), since the first proposition is false, the other is doubtful, which can either be true or false.

Laws of Contradiction

Contradictory opposition is one which exists between two propositions that differ both in quality and
quantity. A and O, E and I are contradictories.

- If one is true, the other is false. (Contradictories cannot be both true.)

- If one is false, the other is true. (Contradictories cannot be both false.)

Examples:

a. A - All soaps are cleansers. True

O - Some soaps ar enot cleansers. False

What is true of the whole “All soaps are cleansers” must be true of its parts “Some soaps are cleansers.” The
negation of the latter which is, “Some soaps are not cleansers” is false.

b. E - No women are married. False

I - Some women are married. True

c. I - Some apples are oranges. False

E - No apples are oranges. True

What is denied of the parts of the whole “Some apples are oranges,” must be denied of the whole “All
apples are oranges.” The negation of the latter which is, “No apples are oranges” is, therefore, true.
d. O - Some prisoners are not guilty. True
A - All prisoners are guilty. False 12
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University

Laws of Subcontrariety

Subcontrary opposition is one which exists between two particular propositions that differ only in
qaulity. I and O propositions are subcontraries.

- If one is false, the other is true. (Subcontraries cannot be both false.)

- If one is true, the other is doubtful, i.e., either true or false. (Subcontraries may be both true.)

Examples:

a. I - Some triangles are squares. False

O - Some triangles are not squares. True

b. O - Some students are not present. False

I - Some students are present. True

c. I - Some basketball players are tall. True

O - Some basketball players are not tall. True

d. O - Some scholars are not dumb. True

I - Some scholars are dumb. False

In (c) and (d), since the first proposition is true, the other is doubtful, which can either be true or false.

Laws of Subalternation

Subalternate opposition is one which exists between two propositions that differ only in quantity. A
and I are the affirmative subalterns; E and O are the negative subalterns. The universal subaltern is called
superaltern or subalternant; the particular subaltern is called subalternate or simply subaltern.

In subalternation, the universal subaltern implies the particular subaltern. The particular subaltern,
however, does not imply the universal subaltern.

- If the universal is true, the particular is true. (What is true of the universal is true of the particular.)
- If the universal is false, the particular is doubtful.

Examples:

a. A - All surgeons are doctors. True

I - Some surgeons are doctors. True

b. E - No beauty title-holder is ugly. True

O - Some beauty title-holder are not ugly. True

c. A - All students are scholars. False

I - Some students are scholars. True
d. E - No dogs are animals. False
O - Some dogs are not animals. False 13
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University

In (c) and (d), since the first proposition is false, the other is doubtful, which can either be true or false.

- If the particular is false, the universal is false. (What is denied of the particular is likewise denied of the
universal.)
- If the particular is truem the universal is doubtful.

Examples:

a. I - Some devils are good. False

A - All devils are good. False

b. O - Some angels are not spiritual. False

E - No angels are spiritual. False

c. I - Some oranges are fruits. True

A - All oranges are fruits. True

d. O - Some athletes are not swimmers. True

E - No athletes are swimmers. False

In (c) and (d), since the first proposition is true, the other is doubtful, which can either be true or false.

Let’s have the rules of the logical opposition in summary.

A. Contradictory Proposition
1. If one is true, the other is false.
2. If one is false, the other is true.

If A is true, O is false.
If E is true, I is false.
If A is false, O is true.
If E is false, I is true.
If O is true, A is false.
If I is true, E is false.
If O is false, A is true.
If I is false, E is true.

B. Contrary Propositions
1. If one is true, the other is false.
2. If one is false, the other is doubtful.

If A is true, E is false.
If A is false, E is doubtful.
If E is true, A is false.
If E is false, A is doubtful.

C. Subcontrary Propositions
14
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
1. If one is false, the other is true.
2. If one is true, the other is doubtful.

If I is false, O is true.
If I is true, O is doubtful.
If O is false, I is true.
If O is true, I is doubtful.

D. Subaltern Propositions

1. If the universal is true, the particular is true.

If the universal is false, the particular is doubtful.

2. If the particular is false, the universal is false.

If the particular is true, the universal is doubtful.

If A is true, I is true.
If E is true, O is true.
If A is false, I is doubtful.
If E is false, O is doubtful.
If I is false, A is false.
If O is false, E is false.
If I is true, A is doubtful.
If O is true, E is doubtful.

Modal Propositions

A modal proposition expresses the manner or mode (Latin modus meaning manner) in which the
predicate agrees or disagrees with the subject. Unlike simple categorical proposition which merely states
that it affirms or denies the predicate of the subject, the modal proposition states how it affirms or denies
the predicate of the subject. It signifies the way in which the subject and the predicate are joined together.

From the point of view of the mode of being, propositions can be divided into four kinds: necessary,
contingent, possible and impossible.

1. Necessary proposition - is one that is not possible to deny. What is cannot be otherwise. What is, is
necessarily. It is something that is and must be so. Examples:

A circle is round. This is necessary proposition because to be round is what circle means. To say that a
circle has sides is clearly to be involved in contradiction.

Fire burns.
The whole must be greater that its parts.
2x2=4
A must be A.
A triangle has to be three-sided.
God cannot be not existing.

15
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
2. Contingent proposition - is one that is, but not necessarily so. A proposition is contingent if it might not
have occurred; something that is but need not be. The denial of contigency in proposition may mean either
necessity or impossibility. Examples:

Mary exists. This proposition expresses something which could have been different. It just happens that
Mary exists. There is nothing in the subject Mary that necessarily implies or makes it possible for us to
deduce, the predicate “exists”. It would be just as true to say that Mary does not exist.

You don’t have to change your image to be loved by someone.

I need not secure a vise to visit Thailand.

3. Possible proposition - one which signifies that something is not, but eventually comes to be. Examples:

It is possible that Eman and Mher are the culprits.

It is possible for Athan to be the Rector’s awardee.

4. Impossible proposition - one which signifies that something cannot be and will never be. Examples:

It is impossible for dead to tell lies.

It is impossoble for an infant to carry a 100-pound load.

OPPOSITION OF MODAL PROPOSITIONS

A E
All judges must be lawyers. Judges cannot be lawyers.
Necessary Impossible

Possible Contingent

Judges can be lawyers. Judges need not be lawyers.

I O
Oppositions of Circumstantially Quantifies Propositions

Circumstantially quantified propositions are those affected by some contingencies of time, place or
circumstance and may be of A, E, I, O kind.

A-proposition (universal affirmative) quantifiers used are: always, in all instances, under all circumstances,
everywhere, by all means.

E-proposition (universal negative) quantifiers used are: never, nowhere, under no circumstance, by no
means.

I-proposition (particular affirmative) quantifiers used are: sometimes, occasionally, somewhere, under some
circumstances.

O-proposition (particular negative) quantifiers used are: sometimes not, not always. 16
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
A E
Edric is always frank. Edric is never frank.

Edric is sometimes frank. Edric is sometimes not frank.

I O

Compound Categorical Proposition

Compound categoricals are those that are composed of two or more simple propositions joined
together to convey a meaningful whole. Some of these propositions may be evidently compound (also called
overtly multiple) while other are covertly compound.

Evidently Compound (Overtly Multiple)

Evidently compund categorical propositions are those whose component parts are obviously
manifested. They are of four kinds: copulative, adversary, relative and causal.

1. Copulative proposition - is one whose several subjects and/or predicates are joined by affirmative or
negative conjunctions such as and, either... or, neither... nor, both... and, and not only... but also. Examples:

a. Copulative with two or more subjects.

1. The mediocre and the moronic always seek their own levels.
2. The priests and nuns offered prayers for the Pope.
3. Neither the mother nor the father has given up on the child.

b. Copulative with two or more predicates.

1. All we need is wit and will.

2. Love can be terrible and terrifying.
3. God is not only generous but also merciful.

c. Copulative with two or more subjects and predicates.

1. Both Dexter and Paul are psalm singers and pianists.

2. Police officials and vigilant citizens are enough to ensure peace and order and to guarantee a
clean and honest election.

2. Adversative proposition - is one whose component parts are joined in opposition by conjunctions like
however, yet, but, although, notwithstanding, nevertheless, nonetheless, etc. Examples:

1. The angel’s message to Mary was brief but complete.

2. His body is all wounded, yet, his face is serene and majestic.
3. Maxell is amazingly handsome; however, he is arrogant.
17
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
3. Relative proposition - is one that expresses a relationship of time and/or place between sentences joined
together by grammatical particles like: after, before, when... then, where... there, until, while, etc. Examples:

1. Where there is bad traffic, there are policemen around.

2. When you need a friend, then call my name.
3. After realizing he was wrong, he asked for an apology.
4. He cleared his name to the public before he tendered his resignation.

4. Causal proposition - is one whose component parts are joined in such a way that one is given as the cause
of the other. The causal conjunctions are for, because, since, inasmuch as, etc. Examples:

1. I held his hands tightly for words cannot express my joy.

2. Since you betrayed her trust, you must suffer the consequences.

Covertly Compound

Covertly compound categorical propositions are those that are apparently simple but in reality are
compound. The compound proposition is hidden (hence, the term covertly) and needs exposition to show
its multiple character. Thus, it is also called exponible proposition because it is an implicit conjunction of two
simple propositions that can be manifested. The simple component propositions into which they can be
resolved are called exponents. Covertly compound categoricals may be exclusive, exceptive, specificative, or
comparative.

1. Exclusive - is one whose subject or predicate is qualified by limiting particles like only, alone, none, but,
solely. It asserts that the predicate applies exclusively to the subject named and is attributable only to that
subject. Examples:

God alone is the Uncaused Cause. This given proposition can be resolved into two simple
propositions: one affirmative, the other negative.
1. God is the Uncaused Cause.
2. No other being is Uncaused.

The vehicle is for official use only.

1. The vehicle is for official use.
2. It is for nothing else.

Only you can make the darkness bright.

1. You can make the darkness bright.
2. No one else can.

None but time can heal the wound.

1. Time can heal the wound.
2. Nothing else can.

2. Exceptive - is one whose subject and predicate is qualified by exception using the words except, save,
with the exception of, etc. It asserts that a part of the extension of the predicate does not apply to the
subject or vice versa. A ngeation is added to the main affirmative proposition. Examples:

18
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
All hostages, except me, were butchered. This given proposition can be resolved into two simple
propositions: one affirmative and the other negative.
1. One hostage was not butchered.
2. All others were butchered.

The office of the President is open everday save Sunday.

1. The office od the President is open eveyday.
2. It is not open on Sundays.

3. Reduplicative - is one whose subject is given a special emphasis by duplicating it with the use of as such,
as. It gives the reason for the connection between the subject and the predicate. Examples:

Priests, as priests, must be a paragon of morality. This is resolved into the following:
1. Priests are paragon of morality.
2. because they are priests.

God, as such, is perfect.

1. God is perfect.
2. because He is a God.

4. Specificative - is one that indicates the condition of the connection between the subject and the
predicate. Examples:

The President, as the leader of the country, knows how to handle difficult situations.

Jose Rock, as a singer, entertains the audience.

5. Comparative - is one whose subject or predicate is qualified with appraisal. It indicates the degree of
comparison as being less, greater or equal by the use of the words less than, greater than, equal to, as... as.
When resolved, the proposition contains theree simple propositions. Examples:

Women are more intelligent than men.

1. Women are intelligent.
2. Men are intelligent.
3. The intelligence of women is greater than that of men.

Her skin is as smooth as the petal of a rose.

1. Her skin is smooth.
2. The petal of a rose is smooth.
3. The smoothness of her skin is of the same degree as that of the petal of a rose.

Hypothetical Propositions

We have learned thus far that a categorical proposition is a simple proposition that gives a direct and
unconditional affirmation or denial of something. A hypothetical proposition, on the other hand, is a
compound proposition that does not affirm nor negate the components themselves but only the nature and
validity of their connection. Thus, a hypothetical proposition can be true even if the components are not
true or are even impossible. From the point of view of a hypothetical compound proposition, we have three
kinds: conditional, disjunctive, and conjunctive. 19
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Conditional Proposition

A conditional proposition expresses a real dependence between a condition (antecedent) which is

usually introduced by the word if, and the conditioned (consequent) introduced by the word then. This kind
of proposition is also known as implication because one (antecedent) implies the other (consequent).
Exmaples:

If the rain stops, then we can go hiking.

If the person is mute, then he can’t communicate well.
If jeepney drivers go on strike, then transportation service will be paralyzed.

Disjunctive proposition

Disjunctive proposition expresses alternatives (disjuncts) all of which cannot be true or false together
but only one can be true, and the other must be false (exclusive disjunction), or at least one of which is true
the possibility that the rest of the alternatives may also be true (inclusive disjunction).

In exclusive disjunction, the disjuncts are mutually exclusive, i.e., one necessarily excludes the other.
One of the disjuncts is necessarily true, while all the others are false. Examples:

The vehicle is either moving or not moving.

The request is either answered or unanswered.
The patient was either dead or alive.

In inclusive disjunction, at least one of the disjuncts is true, although the rest can also be true at the
same time. The disjuncts can all be true but all of them cannot be false altogether. Examples:

You either have a mango or an apple.

One can avail himself of the scholarship grant if he is either a Dean’s Lister or a financially poor
person.
You can eat spaghetti or cake or fried chicken.
I can sing or dance or smile.

Conjunctive proposition

A conjunctive proposition is one that denies the simultaneous possibility of the alternatives
(conjuncts). The conjuncts have to be incompatible, i.e., they cannot all be true simultaneously. Examples:

One cannot go downstairs and meet himself coming up at the same time.
A man cannot walk forward and backward at the same time.
The accused cannot be both innocent and guilty at the same time.

Opposition of the Hypothetical Propositions

The opposition of the conditional proposition follows that of the simple categoricals.

20
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Opposition of Conditional Proposition
A E
If men trust one another, If men trust one another,
then this will be a better this will not be a better
world. world.

If some men trust one If some men trust one

another, then this will another, then this will be a
be a better world. better world.
I O

Opposition of Disjunctive Proposition

A E
A man is either sitting or A man is neither sitting nor
standing. standing

Some men are either Some men are neither

sitting or standing. sitting nor standing.
I O

Opposition of Conjunctive Proposition

A E
A man can sit and stand A man cannot sit and stand
at the same time. at the same time.

Some men can sit and Some men cannot sit and
stand at the same time. stand at the same time.
I O

21
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
CHAPTER 7: INFERENCE AND SYLLOGISM

We are done with the first two mental operations. Through simple apprehension and judgment, the
human intellect grasps innumerable truths. But the vast complexities that reality presents to us demand a
more elaborate process that will allow us to arrive at some complex truths. This is reasoning. Its mental
product is inference; its verbal manifestation is syllogism.

Reasoning is a mental act whereby starting with several judgments which we relate to one another, we
arrive at a new judgment which necessarily follows from the preceding ones. Example:

All vehicles are instruments of transportation;

But, jeep is a vehicle;
.·. Jeep is an instrument of transportation.

Every reasoning process, therefore, involves a number of previously known truths. These truths are
called the premises. The reasoning process also involves the knowledge of a new truth (the conclusion),
which is inferred from the premises. A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three
categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three
categorical terms (Major Term, Minor Term, and Middle Term), each of which is used exactly twice in the
syllogism.

Inference

An inference is the drawing of a conclusion from one or more premises. There are two kinds of
inference: immediate and mediate. When a conclusion is drawn from only one premise, the inference is
immediate; when a conclusion is drawn from two premises, the inference is mediate (because the
conclusion is inferred from one premise through the mediation of another).

The mental product of inferential thinking is argument; the external expression of an argument is called
syllogism. There are two kinds of syllogism: categorical and hypothetical. A categorical syllogism is an
inferential thinking that draws the conclusion in an absolute manner. Example:

Punishing the guilty restores order in the country;

But, putting criminals behind bars is a form of punishing the guilty;
.·. Putting criminals behind bars restores order in the country.

A hypothetical syllogism, on the other hand, is an inferential thinking which concludes with certainty,
affirming or denying a statement, from the affirmation or denial of another. Examples:

If students plagiarize, then they should be punished;

But, the students plagiarize;
.·. They should be punished.

Either you pass the test or you fail;

But, you pass;
.·. You didn’t fail.

One cannot be in Manila and Quezon City at the same time;

But, you are in Manila;
.·. You are not in Quezon City. 22
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
The Nature of Categorical Syllogism

We distinguish between the matter and form of the categorical syllogism. The matter refers to the
propositions that comprise the reasoning process; the form is the link that joins the premises to the
conclusion.

A syllogism is considered valid when it is impossible to have a false conclusion if the premises are true.
False premises cna have either a true or false conclusion. If a true conclusion is drawn from false premises,
its truth is not due to consequence from the false premises but is merely accidental to such inferential
consequence. Therefore, if a conclusion is true, it does not necessarily follow that its premises are true.

Example: (False premises but seemingly true conclusion)

Money makes man live comfortably;

But, man’s goal is money;
.·. Man’s goal is to live comfortably.

On the other hand, an argument can have true premises and yet, the conclusion is false because of the
defective form.

Example: (True premises but false conclusion)

A square is a geometrical figure;

But, a circle is a geometrical figure;
.·. A circle is a square.

Since reasoning is a logical process aiming at truth and consistency, logic does not content itself with
mere consistency but pushes itself toward the truth. A correct syllogism is, therefore, understood as that
which is both sound and valid.

The Constituents of Categorical Syllogism

The categorical syllogism is composed of three terms: major term (P) which is the predicate term of the
conclusion and is contained in the major premise, minor term (S) which is the subject term of the conclusin
and is contained in the minor premise, and middle term (M) which is common to, and found in, both
premises. The major term and the minor term are also called extremes.

Each of the terms appears in exactly two of the propositions. It appears in the order of major premise,
minor premise and conclusion. Example:

All animals are substances;

But, a dog is an animal;
.·. A dog is a substance.

The first proposition All animals are substances is the Major Premise. The second proposition A dog is
an animal is the Minor Premise. A dog is a substance is the Conclusion. The major term is substance which
is found in the major premise and is the predicate of the conclusion. The minor term is dog which is found in
the minor premise and is the subject of the conclusion. Animal is the middle term which is found in both
premises. This is the arrangement of the terms and the order of the propositions. 23
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
CHAPTER 8: CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM AND ITS RULES

Once I heard this story told: A professor’s car ran out of gas. Fortunately, he saw a farmer husking corn
by the side of the road, so he asked the farmer how long it would take to get to the nearest gas station. The
farmer looked up briefly, and then continued husking the corn. The professor repeated the question but
again received no answer. In disgust he walked off toward town. After seeing him wlk several paces, the
farmer yelled, “It will take 21 minutes.” The professor turned and yelled angrily, “Why didn’t you tell me that
while I was standing thre in front of you?” The farmer’s response was simple ut profound” “I couldn’t give a
precise answer until I saw how fast you walked!”

The professor was amazed; this farmer understood the importance of reserving for an accurate
response. This is the same attitude that we have to exhibit when we deal with arguments.

Categorical Syllogism

The categorical syllogism is the logical process in which, the premises relate two terms with a third
(middle), and the relationship is expressed in the conclusion that either unites or separates the first two
terms. In this case, the conclusion will either be in the affirmative or in the negative, depending on how the
terms are related in the premises.

The rules of the categorical syllogism are divided into two sections: the first four pertain to rules
governing the terms, and the last four refer to rules governing the propositions. Listed here are the eight
rules:

1. The middle term must always be taken in the same sense.

2. The major term and the minor term cannot have a greater extension in the conclusion than in the
premise.
3. The middle term should not occur in the conclusion.
4. The middle term must be distributed universally, at least once, in the premises.
5. Two affirmative premises cannot give a negative conclusion.
6. From two negative premises, nothing follows.
7. From two particular premises, nothing follows.
8. The conclusion follows the weaker premise.

Rules of the Categorical Syllogism

Rules #1. The middle term must always be taken in the same sense; otherwise, the syllogism would
contain more than three terms and would therefore commit the Fallacy of Equivocation or the Fallacy of
Four Terms. Examples:

Head is the upper division of the human body;

But, a leader is a head;
.·. A leader is the upper division of the human body.

A father is a male parent;

But, the Holy Pope is a father;
.·. The Holy Pope is a male parent.

A tablet is a compressed solid material for writing;

But, paracetamol is a tablet;
.·. Paracetamol is a compressed solid material for writing. 24
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Rules #2. The major term and the minor term cannot have a greater extension in the conclusion than
in the premise; otherwise, the effect (conclusion) becomes greater than the cause (premises) which is
impossible.

If a term has a greater extension in the conclusion than in the premise, then it cannot be formally the
same term that has been compared in the premise as it should be. If any of the extremes is particular in the
premise, it means that only a part of its extension is compared with the middle term. Thus, only this part
should be expressed as the basis of its agreement or disagreement in the conclusion. The fallacy committed
here is the Fallacy of Illicit Process which is of two kinds: Illicit Major and Illicit Minor.

Illicit Major means the predicate is universal in the conclusion not in the major premise. Illicit Minor
means that the subject is universal in the conclusion but not in the minor premise.

It also has to be noted that the predicate of an affirmative proposition has a particular extension, while
that of a negative proposition has a universal extension. These rules are applicable regardless of the
quantity of the conclusion. The follwoing symbols will be used:

M - Middle Term (universal)

P - Major Term (universal)
S - Minor Term (universal)
p - major term (particular)
s - minor term (particular)
+ - affirmative proposition
- - negative proposition

Examples:

All hammer are tools; (affirmative) M+p

But, no chisels are hammer; S-M
Therefore, no chisels are tools.(negative) S-P

The major term tools in the major premise being the predicate of an affirmative proposition is particular
in extension. Let us check its extension in the conclusion. Since the conclusion is negative, the extension,
therefore, of tools is universal. Hence, the Fallacy of Illicit Major Term.

All birds have wings; M+p

But, all birds are animals; (particular) M+s
Therefore, all animals (universal) have wings. S + p

The minor term animals in the minor premise being the predicate of an affirmative proposition is
particular in extension. Let us check its extension in the conclusion. All animals is universal in extension. The
conclusion overstates the premises, saying more than the evidence allows. Hence, the Fallacy of Illicit Minor
Term.

Rules #3. The middle term should not occur in the conclusion. The middle term is the point of
comparison between the two extremes. The comparison should lead us to a new truth which is expressed in
the conclusion. Since each extreme is to be compared with the middle term, the latter must occur twice in
the premises. In the conclusion, the minor term becomes the subject and the major term the predicate. The
middle term has no place in the conclusion. Should it be found in the conclusion, it will only repeat what has25
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
already been stated in the premises in which case nothing is inferred at all. Violation of Rule #3 is called
Fallacy of Misplaced Middle Term. Example:

A goddess is a female; M+p

But, a goddess is a deity; M+s
Therefore, a goddess is a female deity. M + ps

Today is Friday; M+p

Today is fine; M+s
.·. Today is a fine Friday. M + sp

Rules #4. The middle term must be distributed universally, at least once, in the premises. If the two
extremes are compared with two different parts of the middle term, then there will be two different
suppositions of the middle term giving rise to four-term syllogism which is against Rule #1. However, if one
of the extremes agrees with the whole extension of the middle term and the other agrees with a part of its
extension, and then comparison is possible because what is true of the whole is true of its parts. If the
middle term is twice universal, then its extension and supposition in both premises are exactly the same.
Violation of this rule is called Fallacy of Undistributed Middle Term. Example:

All sharks are fish; P+m

But, all mudfish are fish; S+m
Therefore, all mudfish are sharks. S+p

The middle term is the one that appears in both premises - in this case, it is the class fish which is
predicate of affirmative propositions and is, therefore, twice particular. It is undistributed because neither of
its uses applies to all fish. It cannot, therefore, be used to connect sharks and mudfish - both of them could
be separate and unconnected divisions of the class of fish.

Another example:

All mothers are females; P+m

But, some females are barren; m+s
.·. Some barren persons are mothers. s+p

And still another:

All males are thinkers; P+m

Some thinkers are women; m+s
.·. Some women are males. S+p

Rules #5. Two affirmative premises cannot give a negative conclusion. Since the major term and the
minor term are identified with the same middle term, then the conclusion should express this identity. A
negative conclusion would express something that is not contained in the premises. Violation of this rule is
called Fallacy of a Negative Conclusion drawn from Affirmative Premises. Example:

All stones are hard; M+p

Some diamonds are stones; s+m
.·. Some diamonds are not hard. s-P
26
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Rules #6. From two negative premises, nothing follows. Since the middle tem is predicable of neither
the major nor the minor term, there can be no relationship that is established between these two terms,
and therefore no conclusion can be inferred. Hence, one premise must be affirmative. Example:

All chair is not a table; P-M

But, a table is not a pen; M-S
.·. A pen is not a chair. S-P

We cannot logically draw a conclusion because the subject pen and the predicate chair are excluding
from their classes the middle term table. As a result, the premises allow us no way to relate the classes pen
and chair as this conclusion attempts to do. If we draw a conclusion from two negative premises, we commit
the Fallacy of Negative Premises.

Rules #7. From two particular premises, nothing follows. One pf the premises must be universal for
the middle term to validly connect the major and minor terms. Even inferences on concrete things are based
on some universal truths. If a doctor concludes that, This vegetable contains Vitamin A; therefore, it is good
for the eyes. He reasons from the general premise, Anything that contains Vitamin A is good for the eyes.

Rules #8. The conclusion follows the weaker premise. If one premise is universal and the other
particular, the conclusion should be particular; otherwise, the syllogism commits the Fallacy of Universal
Conclusion drawn from a Particular Premise. Example:

All mongoloids are mentally-retarded; M+p

But, some mongoloids are special children; m+s
.·. All special children are mentally-retarded. S+p

The minor premise, in this example, is particular; therefore, the conclusion must be particular;
otherwise it commits the Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term as in the example above.

Or if one of the premises is negative, and the other affirmative, the conclusion should be negative;
otherwise, the syllogism commits the Fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion drawn from a Negative Premise.
Example:

All swimmers are athletes; P+m

But, some scholars are not athletes; s-M
.·. Some scholars are swimmers. s+p

The minor premise, in this example, is negative; therefore, the conclusion must be negative.

Or, if the premise is particular and negative, the conclusion must be particular and negative. Example:

All moody persons are cranky; P+m

But, some old-maids are not cranky; s-M
.·. All old-maids are moody persons. S+p

27
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department