INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC – IRVING M. COPI from it.

Each may be stated in a separate sentence, as

in the following argument that appears on a sticker
SECTION 1: WHAT LOGIC IS affixed to biology textbooks in the state of Alabama:

A. Logic - The study of the methods and principles No one was present when life first appeared on
used to distinguish correct from incorrect earth. (PREMISE) Therefore any statement about
reasoning. life’s origins should be considered as theory, not
fact. (CONCLUSION)
Proposition - A statement; what is typically asserted Both premise and conclusion may be stated within the
using a declarative sentence, and hence always same sentence, as in this argument arising out of
either true or false—although recent advances in the science of human genetics:
its truth or falsity may be unknown.
Since it turns out that all humans are descended
- Propositions are the building blocks of our from a small number of African ancestors in our
reasoning. A proposition asserts that something is recent evolutionary past, (PREMISE) believing in
the case or it asserts that something is not. We may profound differences between the races is as
affirm a propo- sition, or deny it—but every ridiculous as believing in a flat earth.
proposition either asserts what really is the case, or it (CONCLUSION)
asserts something that is not. Therefore every
proposition is either true or false. Argument - Any group of propositions of which one
________________________________________________ is claimed to follow from the others, which are
Inference - A process by which one proposition is regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth
arrived at and affirmed on the basis of some other of that one.
proposition or propositions. Conclusion - In any argument, the proposition to
which the other propositions in the argument are
B. Arguments claimed to give support, or for which they are given
With propositions as building blocks, we construct as reasons.
arguments. In any argument we affirm one Premises - In an argument, the propositions upon
proposition on the basis of some other which inference is based; the propositions that are
propositions. In doing this, an inference is drawn. claimed to provide grounds or reasons for
Inference is a process that may tie together a the conclusion.
cluster of propositions. Some inferences are __________________________________________
warranted (or correct); others are not. The logician C. Conclusion Indicators and Premise Indicators
analyzes these clusters, examining the propositions
with which the process begins and with which it ends, Conclusion indicator - A word or phrase (such as
as well as the relations among these propositions. “therefore” or “thus”) appearing in an argument and
usually indicating that what follows it is the
Such a cluster of propositions constitutes an conclusion of that argument.
argument. Arguments are the chief concern of logic.
Argument is a technical term in logic. It need not Therefore, for these reasons, hence, it follows that, so,
involve disagreement, or controversy. In logic, I conclude that, accordingly, which shows that, in
argument refers strictly to any group of propositions consequence, which means that, consequently,
of which one is claimed to follow from the others, entails that, proves that which implies that, as a result,
which are regarded as providing support for the which allows us to infer that, for this reason, which
truth of that one. For every possible inference there points to the conclusion that, thus we may infer
is a corresponding argument.
Premise Indicators: Here is a partial list of premise
The simplest kind of argument consists of one indicators:
premise and a conclusion that is claimed to follow
Since, as indicated by, because, the reason is that, for reason for believing that Babel was the name of the
for the reason that, as may be inferred from, follows tower, because the fact that that was the name is
from, may be derived from, as shown by, may be known by those to whom the passage is addressed. In
deduced from, In as much as, in view of the fact that this context, “because” indicates that what follows
will explain the giving of that name, Babel, to that
Rhetorical question - An utterance used to make a tower.
statement, but which, because it is in interrogative
form and is therefore neither true nor false, does not These two passages illustrate the fact that
literally assert anything. superficially similar passages may have very
different functions. Whether some passage is an
D. ARGUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS argument or an explanation depends on the purpose
to be served by it. If our aim is to establish the truth
Passages that appear to be arguments are sometimes of some proposition, Q, and we offer some
not arguments but explanations. The appearance of evidence, P, in support of Q, we may appropriately
words that are common indicators—such as say “Q because P.” In this case we are giving an
“because,” “for,” “since,” and “therefore”—cannot argument for Q, and P is our premise. Alternatively,
settle the matter, because those words are used both suppose that Q is known to be true. In that case we
in explanations and in arguments (although “since” don’t have to give any reasons to support its truth, but
can sometimes refer to temporal succession). We we may wish to give an account of why it is true. Here
need to know the intention of the author. Compare the also we may say “Q because P”—but in this case we
following two passages: are giving not an argument for Q, but an explanation of
1. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where Q.
neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves
do not break in and steal. For where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also. —Matt. 7:19 D. DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENTS
2. Therefore is the name of it [the tower] called
Babel; because the Lord did there confound the A deductive argument makes the claim that its
language of all the earth. —Gen. 11:19 conclusion is supported by its premises
conclusively. An inductive argument, in contrast,
The first passage is clearly an argument. Its does not make such a claim. Therefore, if we judge
conclusion, that one ought to lay up treasures in that in some passage a claim for conclusiveness is
heaven, is supported by the premise (here marked by being made, we treat the argument as deductive; if
the word “for”) that one’s heart will be where one’s we judge that such a claim is not being made, we
treasure is laid up. The second passage, which uses treat it as inductive. Because every argument either
the word “therefore” quite appropriately, is not an makes this claim of conclusiveness (explicitly or
argument. It explains why the tower (whose implicitly) or does not make it, every argument is either
construction is recounted in Genesis) is called Babel. deductive or inductive.
The tower was given this name, we are told, because it
was the place where humankind, formerly speaking For logicians the term validity is applicable only to
one language, became confounded by many deductive arguments. To say that a deductive
languages—the name is derived from a Hebrew word argument is valid is to say that it is not possible for
meaning “to confound.” The passage assumes that its conclusion to be false if its premises are true.
the reader knows that the tower had that name; the Thus we define validity as follows: A deductive
intention is to explain why that name was given to it. argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its
The phrase, “Therefore is the name of it called conclusion must be true. In everyday speech, of
Babel,” is not a conclusion but a completion of the course, the term valid is used much more loosely.
explanation of the naming. In addition, the clause,
“because the Lord did there confound the language of Although every deductive argument makes the claim
all the earth,” is not a premise; it could not serve as a that its premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion,
not all deductive arguments live up to that claim. cannot possibly be found within any one
Deductive arguments that fail to do so are invalid. proposition.
Because every deductive argument either succeeds or
does not succeed in achieving its objective, every Truth and falsehood, on the other hand, are
deductive argument is either valid or invalid. This attributes of individual propositions. A single
point is important: If a deductive argument is not statement that serves as a premise in an argument
valid, it must be invalid; if it is not invalid, it must be may be true; the statement that serves as its
valid. conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have
been validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion
The central task of deductive logic is to (or any single premise) is it- self valid or invalid
discriminate valid arguments from invalid ones. makes no sense.

In contrast, the central task of inductive arguments I. Some valid arguments contain only true
is to ascertain(find) the facts by which conduct may propositions—true premises and a true
be guided directly, or on which other arguments conclusion:
may be built. Empirical investigations are All mammals have lungs.
undertaken—as in medicine, or social science, or All whales are mammals.
astronomy—leading, when inductive techniques are Therefore all whales have lungs.
applied appropriately, to factual conclusions, most
often concerning cause-and-effect relationships of II. Some valid arguments contain only false
some importance. propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion:
Deductive argument All four-legged creatures have wings.
One of the two major types of argument Traditionally All spiders have exactly four legs.
distinguished, the other being the inductive argument. Therefore all spiders have wings.
A deductive argument claims to provide conclusive
grounds for its conclusion. If it does provide such This argument is valid because, if its premises were
grounds, it is valid; if it does not, it is invalid. true, its conclusion would have to be true also—
even though we know that in fact both the premises
Inductive argument and the conclusion of this argument are false.
One of the two major types of argument. Traditionally
distinguished, the other being the deductive III. Some invalid arguments contain only true
argument. An inductive argument claims that its propositions—all their premises are true, and their
premises give only some degree of probability, but conclusions are true as well:
not certainty, to its conclusion. If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be
wealthy.
SECTION 6: VALIDITY AND TRUTH I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore I am not wealthy.
A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in
linking, with logical necessity, the conclusion to its The true conclusion of this argument does not follow
premises. Its validity refers to the relation between from its true premises. This will be seen more clearly
its propositions—between the set of propositions when the immediately following illustration is
that serve as the premises and the one proposition considered.
that serves as the conclusion of that argument. If
the conclusion follows with logical necessity from IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true
the premises, we say that the argument is valid. premises and have a false conclusion. This is
Therefore validity can never apply to any single illustrated by an argument exactly like the previous
proposition by itself, because the needed relation one (III) in form, changed only enough to make the
conclusion false.
If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then Bill
Gates would be wealthy. The second table shows that valid arguments can
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox. have only three of those combinations of true and
Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy. false premises and conclusions:

The premises of this argument are true, but its

conclusion is false. Such an argument cannot be valid
because it is impossible for the premises of a valid
argument to be true and its conclusion to be false.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a

true conclusion: SECTION 2: LANGUAGE FUNCTIONS

All fishes are mammals. We may say that language has three major functions:
All whales are fishes. 1. Informative
Therefore all whales are mammals. 2. Expressive
3. Directive- To these we may add less common types
The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; of use:
moreover, it may be validly inferred from these two 4. Ceremonial language (as when we say, “How do
premises, both of which are wildly false. you do?” upon being introduced to a stranger), in
which words may combine expressive and other
VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises functions; and
and a true conclusion: 5. Performative language (as when we say, “I
All mammals have wings. apologize for my foolish remark”), in which words
All whales have wings. themselves serve, when spoken or written, to perform
Therefore all whales are mammals. the function they announce. Other examples are “I
congratulate you, . . .” “I accept your offer, . . .” and “I
From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that promise you that. . . .”
we cannot tell from the fact that an argument has false
premises and a true conclusion whether it is valid or SECTION 3: FALLACIES
invalid.
Fallacy- A type of argument that seems to be
VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all correct, but contains a mistake in reasoning.
false propositions—false premises and a false
conclusion: FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE. Fallacies of relevance
are the most numerous and the most frequently
All mammals have wings. encountered. In these fallacies, the premises of the
All whales have wings. argument are simply not relevant to the
Therefore all mammals are whales. conclusion. However, because they are made to
appear to be relevant, they may deceive. We will
Two tables (referring to the seven preceding examples) distinguish and discuss:
will make very clear the variety of possible • R1: The appeal to the populace - An informal fallacy
combinations. The first table shows that invalid in which the support given for some conclusion is
arguments can have every possible combination of an appeal to popular belief. Also known as argument
true and false premises and conclusions: ad populum.
• R2: The appeal to emotion
Appeal to Pity fallacy in which the argument relies on Slippery slope- A fallacy in which change in a
generosity, altruism, or mercy, rather than on particular direction is asserted to lead inevitably to
reason. Also known as argument ad misericordiam. further changes (usually undesirable) in the same
direction.
• R3: The red herring - A fallacy in which attention is • D4: Hasty generalization - A fallacy of defective
deliberately deflected away from the issue under induction in which one moves carelessly from a
discussion single case, or a very few cases, to a largescale
• R4: The straw man - A fallacy in which an generalization about all or most cases. Also known
opponent's position is depicted as being more as “converse accident.
extreme or unreasonable than is justified by what
was actually asserted. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION. In fallacies of
• R5: The attack on the person (Abusive or presumption, too much is assumed in the premises.
Circumstancial) - A fallacy in which the argument The inference to the conclusion depends mistakenly
relies upon an attack against the person taking a on these unwarranted assumptions. We will
position. This fallacy is also known as “argument ad distinguish and discuss:
hominem.” • P1: Accident - A fallacy in which a generalization is
• R6: The appeal to force - Appeal to force A fallacy in mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the
which the argument relies upon an open or veiled generalization does not apply
threat of force. Also known as “argument ad • P2: Complex question - An informal fallacy in which
baculum.” a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose
• R7: Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion) - A the truth of some conclusion buried in that question
fallacy in which the premises support a different • P3: Begging the question - An informal fallacy in
conclusion from the one that is proposed. Also which the conclusion of an argument is stated or
known as “irrelevant conclusion” and “ignoratio assumed in any one of the premises. Also known as
elenchi.” “circular argument” and petitio principii.

FALLACIES OF DEFECTIVE INDUCTION. In fallacies FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY. The incorrect reasoning

of defective induction, A fallacy in which the premises in fallacies of ambiguity arises from the equivocal
are too weak or ineffective to warrant the use of words or phrases. Some word or phrase in
conclusion. one part of the argument has a meaning different
• D1: The argument from ignorance - A fallacy in from that of the same word or phrase in another part
which a proposition is held to be true just because of the argument. We will distinguish and discuss:
it has not been proven false, or false because it has • A1: Equivocation - A fallacy in which two or more
not been proven true. Also known as “argument ad meanings of a word or phrase are used,
ignorantiam.” accidentally or deliberately, in different parts of an
• D2: The appeal to inappropriate authority - A argument.
fallacy in which a conclusion is accepted as true • A2: Amphiboly - A fallacy in which a loose or
simply because an expert has said that it is true. awkward combination of words can be interpreted
This is a fallacy whether or not the expert’s area of in more than one way; the argument contains a
expertise is relevant to the conclusion. Also known as premise based upon one interpretation, while the
“argument ad verecundiam.” conclusion relies on a different interpretation.
• D3: False cause - A fallacy in which something that • A3: Accent - A fallacy of ambiguity that occurs when
is not really the cause of something else is treated an argument contains a premise that relies on one
as its cause. Also known as non causa pro causa. possible emphasis of certain words, but the
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - A fallacy in which an conclusion relies on a different emphasis that gives
event is presumed to have been caused by a closely those same words a different meaning.
preceding event. Literally, “After this; therefore, • A4: Composition - A fallacy of ambiguity in which an
because of this.” argument erroneously assigns attributes to a whole
(or to a collection) based on the fact that parts of that
whole (or members of that collection) have those categorical proposition is either universal in quantity
attributes. or particular in quantity.
• A5: Division - A fallacy of ambiguity in which an
argument erroneously assigns attributes to parts of Distribution- An attribute that describes the
a whole (or to members of a collection) based on the relationship between a categorical proposition and
fact that the whole (or the collection) has those each one of its terms, indicating whether or not the
attributes. proposition makes a statement about every member
of the class represented by a given term.
SECTION 4: CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS d

Categorical proposition- A proposition that can be

analyzed as being about classes, or categories,
affirming or denying that one class, S, is included in
some other class, P, in whole or in part.

Standard-form categorical proposition- Any

categorical proposition of the form “All S is P”
(universal affirmative), “No S is P” (universal negative),
“Some S is P” (particular affirmative), or “Some S is
not P” (particular negative). Respectively, these four THE TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION
types are known as A, E, I, and O propositions.

FOUR KINDS OF CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Opposition- The logical relation that exists between

two contradictories, between two contraries, or in
QUALITY, QUANTITY AND DISTRIBUTION general between any two categorical propositions that
differ in quantity, quality, or other respects. These
Quality- An attribute of every categorical proposition, relations are displayed on the square of opposition.
determined by whether the proposition affirms or
denies class inclusion. Thus every categorical Contradictories- Two propositions so related that one
proposition is either universal in quality or particular in is the denial or negation of the other. On the traditional
quality. square of opposition, the two pairs of contradictories
are indicated by the diagonals of the square: A and E
Quantity - An attribute of every categorical propositions are the contradictories of O and I,
proposition, determined by whether the proposition respectively
refers to all members or only to some members of the
class designated by its subject term. Thus every Contraries Two propositions so related that they
cannot both be true, although both may be false.
 “converse” of the original proposition. The original
Contingent Being neither tautologous nor self proposition is called the “convertend.”
contradictory. A contingent statement may be true or
false. 2. Obversion - A valid form of immediate inference for
every standard-form categorical proposition. To
Subcontraries Two propositions so related that they obvert a proposition we change its quality (from
cannot both be false, although they may both be true affirmative to negative, or from negative to affirmative)
and replace the predicate term with its complement.
Subalternation The relation on the square of Thus, applied to the proposition “All dogs are
opposition between a universal proposition (an A or an mammals,” obversion yields “No dogs are
E proposition) and its corresponding particular nonmammals,” which is called the “obverse” of the
proposition (an I or an O proposition, respectively). In original proposition. The original proposition is called
this relation, the particular proposition (I or O) is called the “obvertend.”
the “subaltern,” and the universal proposition (A or E)
is called the “superaltern.” 3. Contraposition - A valid form of immediate
inference for some, but not for all types of
Square of opposition A diagram in the form of a propositions. To form the contrapositive of a given
square in which the four types of categorical proposition, its subject term is replaced by the
propositions (A, E, I, and O) are situated at the corners, complement of its predicate term, and its predicate
exhibiting the logical relations (called “oppositions”) term is replaced by the complement of its subject
among these propositions. term. Thus the contrapositive of the proposition “All
humans are mammals” is the proposition “All
nonmammals are nonhumans.”

Immediate inference An inference that is drawn

directly from one premise without the mediation of
any other premise. Various kinds of immediate
inferences may be distinguished, traditionally
including conversion, obversion, and contraposition.

Mediate inference Any inference drawn from more

than one premise

Further Immediate Reference

1. Conversion - A valid form of immediate inference

for some but not all types of propositions. To form the
converse of a proposition the subject and predicate
terms are simply interchanged. Thus, applied to the
proposition “No circles are squares,” conversion
yields “No squares are circles,” which is called the
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Syllogism Any deductive argument in which a

conclusion is inferred from two premises.

Categorical syllogism A deductive argument

consisting of three categorical propositions that
contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in
exactly two of the propositions.

Standard form The form in which a syllogism is said to

be when its premises and conclusion are all standard-
form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O) and are
arranged in standard order (major premise, then minor
premise, then conclusion).