Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 1

1) Proposition
 The various units of thought are called 'prepositions'. Or 'when any two concepts are
compared or contrasted in the mind and a relationship of agreement or disagreement is
formed, the result is a judgment. When a judgment is expressed in language, it is called
proposition'. According to Aristotelian logic, Term is the basic unit of thought, while
according to the modern logic, proposition is the basic unit of thought.
 A proposition asserts that something is the case or it asserts that something is not.
 Which is asserting or denying something. Therefore, every proposition is either true or
false.
 Propositions are the building blocks of our reasoning.
 The term statement is not an exact synonym of proposition, but it is often used in logic in
much the same sense.

All men are mortal.

Quantifier Predicate

Subject Copula

 Quantifier:
 It shows the measurement or quantity of the members of a group, proposition/something.
 For Example:
 All, few, some etc.
 Quantifiers are of two types but normally three types:
i. Singular
Universal
ii. Universal
iii. Particular
1. Universal Quantifier:
 A universal quantifier is a word which is extended to the whole members of the group.
 For Example:
 All, total, whole, non, etc.

2. Particular Quantifier:
 A particular quantifier is a word which is extended to the certain members of the group.
 For Example:
 Some, Few, Most, Majority, Usually, Maximum, Minimum, etc.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 2

  Subject:
 The subject is that part of the proposition about which is something either affirmed or
decided.
 For Example:
All the apples are fruits.
 Here the word “Apples” is subject.
 Copula:
 These are qualifier words which is making a relationship between Subject and
Predicate.
 It shows the quality of proposition that is affirmative or negative.
 For Example:
i. All apples are fruits. (Affirmative Copula)
ii. All apples are not fruits. (Negative Copula)
 Predicate:
 Predicate gives the information about Subject.
 For Example:
All dogs are mammals.
 Here the word “mammals” is predicate which tells information about subject “dog”.
 Types of Propositions:
1. Hypothetical Proposition
2. Categorical Proposition
1. Categorical Proposition
 The proposition which are based on categories, separate classes or categories are
formed.
 Reasoning which are based on categories of objects.
 The nature of the categorical proposition is a kind of proposition that expresses
unconditional judgement.
 Kinds of Categorical Proposition
The four kinds of standard categorical proposition:
i. A: Universal Affirmative (All men are mortal.)
ii. E: Universal Negative (No man is mortal.)
iii. I: Particular Affirmative (Some men are mortal.)
iv. O: Particular Negative (Some men are not mortal.)

 Propositions with definitions

I. Universal Affirmative Proposition
 When the quantifier denotes all the subject with affirmation or positivity, then it
is called Universal Affirmative Proposition.
 For Example:
 All students are intelligent.
Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 3
 II. Affirmative Proposition
 When there is an affirmation of a proposition with positive nature, then it is
called Affirmative Proposition.
 Where copula of “is, are. Am” is used.
 For Example:
 Indian doctors are intelligent.
 Indians are handsome in the world.
III. Negative Proposition
 When there is a deny of any claim or statement, then it is called Negative
Proposition.
 Where copula of “is not, are not, am not” is used.
 For Example:
 Indian doctors are not intelligent.
 Indians are not handsome in the world.
IV. Particular Proposition
 When the quantifiers of some, few, many are used in the claim, then it is called
Particular Proposition.
 For Example:
 Some Pakistani are cricketer.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 4

  Definition:
 An argument is a connected series of statements intended on establish a proposition.
 Argument is consisted of a set of connected reasoning.
 An argument is an attempt to establish conclusion.
 An argument consists of some premises and a conclusion.
 An argument is a system of thought in which the earlier proposition or propositions
state the problem itself and are called “Premise or premises’. While the last proposition
offers the solution of the problem and is called the “Conclusion”.

 Elements of Argument:
 An argument is consisted of some Premises and a conclusion.
 Premises and Conclusion are all statements.
 Factual Claim + Premise = Conclusion or Inferential Claim
 For Example
 All men are mortal. Factual Claims or Premises
 Some Americans are men.
 Therefore, Some Americans are mortal. (Conclusion)

 Premise:
 The statements giving reasons for accepting the conclusion.

 Conclusion:
 The statement argued for or the statement for the acceptance of which the
reasons are being presented.

 Statement:
 A statement is a sentence. However, a sentence may of any four types namely:
i. Imperative Sentence (Commands, Giving orders)
ii. Interrogative Sentence (Questions, asking something)
iii. Exclamatory Sentence (Feelings, vent of emotions)
iv. Declarative Sentence (Sentence which may be true or false or the truth
of which may be asserted or denied)
 This is related to propositions. Other 3 sentences are not
propositions.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 5

  Structure of Argument
 Premise 1 = All Indians are poets.
 Premise 2 = Aslam is an Indian.
 Conclusion = Therefore, Aslam is a poet.

 “ss” Formula
To Check:
 The “s” stands for “Structure of the Argument".
 The “s” stands for “Strength of the Conclusion”.
 For Example:
 All men are mortal.
 Akram is a man.
 Therefore, Akram is a student. (Conclusion)
o There is no strength in the conclusion. This statement is true in itself but
it does not follow the conclusion.

 Three terms in Categorical Proposition/Argument

 Premise 1 = All human beings are living things.

 Premise 2 = No angels are living things.
 Conclusion = Therefore, no human beings are angels.

i. Major Term
 Predicate of the conclusion is called the Major Term.
 For Example:
 No human beings are angels.

ii. Minor Term

 Subject of the conclusion is called the Minor Term.
 For Example:
 No human beings are angel.
iii. Middle Term
 That term which occurs in the both of the premises but not in the conclusion.
 For Example:
 All human beings are living things.
 No angels are living things.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 6

  Types of Arguments
There are two types of arguments:
i. Deductive Argument
ii. Inductive Argument

1. Deductive Argument
 It is that argument which consists of using general principles to infer specific
propositions.
 Universal Universal
 Universal Particular
 For Example:
 Aisha always wears glasses to go to school.
 Aisha will be come to school tomorrow.
 Therefore, Aisha will be wear glasses to go to school tomorrow.

2. Inductive Argument
 It is that argument which consists of using specific principles to infer general
proposition.
 Particular Universal
 For Example:
 Fareed wore Shalwar Qameez to work on Friday.
 Fareed wore Shalwar Qameez to work on Saturday.
 Fareed wore Shalwar Qameez to work on Monday.
 Therefore, Fareed always wears Shalwar Qameez to work.

Remember:

 If the given premises are true, then conclusion will be true.

 If the given premises are false, then the conclusion will be false.
 Claim General Conclusion General
 Claim Particular Conclusion Particular

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 7

  Definition:
 Inference is that mental process in which from given proposition or propositions a new
proposition is derived by way of conclusion.
 The evidence is called inference because it contains data or it would be a factual claim.

 Kinds of Inference
There are two (2) kinds of Inference:
i. Deductive Inference
 In deductive inference a less general or partial conclusion is drawn from
General propositions.
 For Example
 All men are mortal.
 Aslam is a man.
 Therefore, Aslam is mortal.
ii. Inductive Inference
 In inductive inference, on the other hand, a general conclusion is arrived at with
the help of particular propositions.
 For Example
 A is a man and he has died.
 B is a man and he has died.
 C is a man and he has died.
 Therefore, all men are mortal.

 Kinds of Deductive Inference

There are generally speaking two kinds of Deductive Inference which are as follows:
A. Immediate Inference
B. Mediate Inference
1) Immediate Inference (Without Medium)
 Immediate Inference is that mental process in which the mind infers a conclusion from
one proposition only.
 Immediate Inference is that inference in which from a single premises or propositions a
conclusion is drawn.
 In this inference no second proposition is needed to draw the conclusion.
 It is also called Direct Inference.
 For Example

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 8

  All men are mortal. (Premise)
 Therefore, no man is non-mortal. (Conclusion)

2) Mediate Inference (Medium required)

 Mediate Inference is that in which a conclusion is drawn from more than one
propositions (premises) taken jointly.
 It can be approached by the help of a medium.
 It may be called as Indirect Inference.
 For Example
 All men are mortal.
 Yasir is a man.
 Therefore, Yasir is mortal.

 Kinds of Immediate Inference

i. Conversion
ii. Obversion
iii. Contraposition
iv. Inversion
1) Conversion
 Conversion is that kind of Immediate Inference in which a proposition is inferred from
a given proposition in such a way that the subject and the predicate of the premises
interchange places in the conclusion.
 The proposition or premises is called Convertend.
 The conclusion inferred is called Converse.
 For Example:
 No table is chair. (Premise)
 Therefore, no chair is table. (Conclusion)
 Here, “No table is chair” is the convertend, while “No chair is table” is the
converse.
 Rules for Conversion
1. In conversion, the subject and predicate interchange their places in the
Conclusion.
2. The quality of the convertend and converse remain the same; that is, if the
convertend is affirmative the converse will also be affirmative, and if the
convertend is negative the converse will also be negative.
3. No term can be taken Distributed in the converse, if it is not distributed in the
convertend. But a term which is disturbed in the convertend may be taken
Undistributed in the converse.

Let us apply the process of Conversion to the four standard forms of Propositions
A,E,I,O and see the results.
Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 9
 Propositions A = 'All S is P' is a Universal Affirmative Proposition. By applying the
three Rules we will have:

1. Applying the rule, we will change 'All S is P' to 'All P is S'.

2. According to the 2nd rule, the converse will remain affirmative;
3. According to the 3rd rule, since the predicate of an A proposition 'All S is P' is
undistributed in the convertend, it should remain undistributed in the converse.

Thus, the converse of an A proposition is always Particular affirmative Proposition

which is an I proposition.

Proposition E = 'No S is P' is a Universal Negative Proposition. By applying the

three rules we will have:

1. Applying the 1st rule, we will change 'S is P' to 'P is S'.
2. According to rule 2, since both the subject and predicate of the convertend are
distributed, they will remain distributed in the converse.

Hence, the Converse of an E proposition is always a Universal Negative Proposition

which is an E proposition.

Proposition I = 'some S is P' is a particular Affirmative Proposition. By applying the

rules:

1. By applying rule 1, we will change 'Some S is P' to 'Some P is S'.

2. According to rule 2, the converse will remain affirmative.
3. According to rule 3, since both subject and predicate of the convertend are
undistributed in the converse also. Thus, a particular affirmative proposition
will remain a particular affirmative proposition, i.e. an I proposition.

Hence the converse of an I proposition is an I proposition.

Proposition O = 'Some S is not P' is a Particular Negative proposition applying the

rules we have:

1. According to rule , 'Some S is not P' becomes 'Some P is not S';

2. According to 2nd rule, the converse will be a Negative Proposition.
3. According to rule 3, we cannot distribute any term in the converse which is not
distributed in the convertend. However, in the converse of an O proposition, the
subject of the convertend is distributed when it was not distributed in the
convertend which is logically false.

Hence, no Conversion of the O is possible.

2) Obversion

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 10

  Obversion is that process of Immediate Inference in which from a given proposition
another proposition is drawn in which the predicate of the premises is hanged to its
contradictory. The premise is called the Obvertend, while the conclusion is called the
Obverse.
 Rules for Obversion
1. The Predicate of the obverse must be the contradictory of the predicate of the
Obvertend;
2. The quality of the Obvertend will be changed in the obverse, i.e., if the
Obvertend is Affirmative, the Obverse will be Negative, and vice versa;
3. No term shall be distributed in the Obverse, if it is not distributed in the
Obvertend;
4. The quantity of the Obvertend will not be changed in the Obverse.

Let us apply these four rules of Obversion to the four standard propositions A,E,I,O to find
out their obverse.

Proposition A = 'All S is P' is an affirmative proposition.

According to the rule 2, its obverse will be a negative proposition. Thus, 'All S is P' will
become 'No S is P'.

According to rule 1, the predicate of the obverse will be "non-p instead of p".

According to rule 4, the quantity of the obvertend will remain the same, i.e., it will remain
universal.

Thus, according to the above procedure, the obverse of an A proposition will be an E

proposition which has the same quantity as the obvertend but differs in quality. In other words,
the obverse of 'All S is P' will be 'No S is non-p'.

Proposition E = 'No S is P' is universal negative proposition. According to rule 1 the

predicate P will be changed to "non-P".

According to rule 2, the obverse of an E proposition will be an affirmative proposition as the

quality will change.

According to rule 4, as the quality will remain the same, E proposition will change to an A
proposition.

Thus, the obverse of E proposition 'NO S is P' will be an A proposition 'All S is non-P'. Taking
a concrete example, the obverse of 'No chairs are tables' will be 'All chairs are non-tables'.

Proposition I = 'Some S is P' is particular affirmative proposition.

According to rule 1, the predicate P of the obvertend will become "non-P" in the obverse.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 11

 According to rule 2, we will change 'Some S is P' into negative proposition, i.e., 'Some S is
non-P'

According to rule 4, the obverse of a particular proposition will remain a particular proposition.

Thus, the obverse of an I proposition 'Some S is P' will be an O proposition 'Some S is not non-
P'. Taking a concrete example, the obverse of 'Some men are wise' is 'Some men are not non-
wise'.

Similarly, Proposition O = 'Some S is not P' is particular negative proposition. According to

rule 4, it will remain a particular proposition.

According to rule 2, as it is a negative proposition, it will be changed to an affirmative

proposition, that is, an I proposition.

According to rule 1, the predicate P of the obvertend will be changed to "non-P" in the obverse.

Thus, the obverse of an O proposition 'Some S is not P' will be an I proposition 'Some S is non-
P'. Taking a concrete example, the obverse of 'Some men are not wise' will be 'Some men are
non-wise'.

Square of Opposition of Propositions

This square applies to the four standard forms of Propositions, i.e., A, E, I, O. This opposition is
between any two propositions when they have the same subject and predicate but differ in quality or
quantity or both.

The square of opposition is a diagram representing the relations between the four basic categorical
propositions. This doctrine was discovered by Aristotle in the fourth century BC. The diagram for the
square of opposition is:

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 12

The theses embodied in this diagram is called square. They are:

 'Every S is P' and 'Some S is not P' are contradictories.

 'No S is P' and 'Some S is P' are contradictories.
 'Every S is P' and 'No S is P' are contraries.
 'Some S is P' and 'Some S is not P' are subcontraries.
 'Some S is P' is a subaltern of 'Every S is P'.
 'Some S is not P' is a subaltern of 'No S is P'.

These theses were supplemented with the following explanations:

 Two propositions are contradictory if they cannot both be true, and they cannot both be false.
 Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both be true, but can both be false.
 Two propositions are subcontraries if they cannot both be false, but can both be true.
 A proposition is a subaltern of another if it must be true if its superaltern is true, and the
superaltern must be false if the subaltern is false.

In Aristotelian logic four relations were recognized between the four standard forms of propositions
which are:

1) Contrariety
 The two universal propositions A and E are contrary to each other, because they differ
in quality only. That is, the proposition A is affirmative, while the proposition is
negative. They cannot both be true, but may both be false. Thus, if proposition A is
true, then E must be false and vice versa. For example:
 A = All men are doctors
E = No men are doctors
2) Sub-Contrariety
 The two particular propositions I and O are sub-contraries in so far as they differ in
quality only. The relation of sub-contrary is the opposite of contraries. In Sub-
contraries, the two propositions I and O may both be true. Thus, it is true that 'Some
men are doctors' and that 'Some men are not doctors'. They can both be true at the same
time. But they cannot both be false. There is no third possibility between them.
3) Contradiction or Contradictories
 The relation of Contradiction is found between any two propositions which differ in
both quality and quantity, i.e., A and O, and E and I. For example:
 A = All men are doctors.
 O = Some men are not doctors.

These propositions differ in quality and quantity both. They cannot both be true, nor can they both be
false. If A is true, then O must be false and vice versa. Similarly, if E is true, then I must be false and
vice versa. The relationship of contradiction is the most perfect logical relation.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 13

 Fallacies
Definition:
 A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the
construction of an argument.
 A type of argument that seems to be correct but contains a mistake in reasoning.
 Fallacies are bad arguments that follow commonly used patterns (as many people think that
they are good arguments).

Kinds of Fallacy
1. Formal Fallacy
 A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does
not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the
argument invalid. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic. Such
an argument is always considered to be wrong.
 In formal fallacies, the pattern of reasoning seems logical but is always wrong.
2. Informal Fallacy
 An informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form
of the argument. A deductive argument containing an informal fallacy may be formally
valid but remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both
deductive and non-deductive arguments.

Classification of Fallacy
1. Fallacies of Relevance
 In these fallacies, the premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the
conclusion.
2. Fallacies of Defective Induction
 In fallacies of Defective deduction, the mistake arises from the fact that the premises of
the argument, although relevant to the conclusion, are so weak and ineffective that
relying on them is a blunder.
3. Fallacies of Presumption
 In fallacies of presumption, too much is assumed in the premises. The inference to the
conclusion depends mistakenly on these unwarranted assumptions.
4. Fallacies of Ambiguity
 The incorrect reasoning in fallacies of ambiguity arises from the equivocal use of words
or phrases.
 Some words or phrase in one part of the argument has a meaning different from that of
the same word or phrase in another part of the argument.
 A term may have one sense in a premise but quite a different sense in the conclusion.
 These kinds of mistakes are sometimes also known as “Sophisms”.

Prepared by: Fareed Khan Taryyn Page 14