DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES
2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: What is Logic 7

PART I: ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC 9
Propositions 9
Terms in a Proposition 13
Quantity of Terms 13
Categorical Propositions 17
Standard Forms 17
Quantity of Propositions 18
Quality of Propositions 18
Distribution of Terms 21
Summary of Characteristics 21
Translating Statements into Standard Forms 25
Square of Opposition 29
Categorical Syllogism 35
Components 35
Components According to Terms 35
The Form of a Syllogism 36
Testing the Validity of Syllogisms 39
Traditional Rules 39
Venn Diagrams 45

PART II: INFORMAL FALLACIES 55

The Difference Between Formal and Informal Fallacies 55
Fallacies of Relevance 55
Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) 56
Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument Against the Person) 56
Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to People) 57
Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) 57
Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Wrong Authority) 58
Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance) 58
Non-Sequitur (It does not follow) 58
Use of Flattery 58
Fallacies of Sufficiency 59
Hasty Generalization 59
Accident 59
False Cause 59
False Dichotomy 60
Weak Analogy 60
Suppressed Evidence 60

3
 Begging the Question 61
Complex Question 61
Assuming Too Much 61
Circular Argument 61
Fallacy of Novelty 62

Fallacies of Expression 62
Equivocation 62
Amphiboly 62
Composition 62
Division 63
Accent 63

PART III: SYMBOLIC LOGIC 67

Introduction 67
Statement 68
Logical Connectives 71
Negation 71
Conjunction 71
Disjunction 72
Conditional 73
Bi-conditional 74

Complex Compound Statements 79

Truth-Table Analysis 83
Negation 83
Conjunction 83
Disjunction 84
Conditional 84
Bi-conditional 85

Evaluation of Statement Calculus and Syllogistic Analysis 87

Truth-Table Method 87
Truth-Table Method for Statements 88
Truth-Table Method for Arguments 91
Substitution Method 95
Proving the Invalidity 99

4
 Natural Deduction 101
Implicative Rules 101
Conjunction 101
Simplification 107
Modus Ponens 111
Modus Tollens 115
Disjunctive Syllogism 119
Disjunction Introduction 123
Hypothetical Syllogism 127
Absorption 131
Constructive Dilemma 135
Destructive Dilemma 139
Law of Absurdity 143

Replacement Rules 147

Double Negation 147
Tautology 151
Commutation 155
Association 159
Equivalence 163
Distribution 167
Transportation 171
Exportation 175
Denial for Conjunction 179
De Morgan’s Rule 183
Implication of a Disjunction and/or Implication of a Conditional 187

PART IV: BRAIN TEASERS 191

SOURCES 197

5
6
 INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS LOGIC?

Logic as a discipline was introduced about 2,400 years ago. Aristotle, who is
considered the founder of this discipline, envisioned it as an organon or an instrument
for proper thinking. For him, the ability to engage in proper thinking or correct reason-
ing is an important element of being human, without which would make us any different
from other animals. In other words, we are humans because we are rational beings.

The word logic is derived from the Greek word λόγος (logos). It means order,
sense, or coherence. For the ancient Greeks, what makes sense, orderly, or coherent
is rational. Hence, what is logical is rational, and what is rational is logical. Further-
more, as rational beings, we are predisposed to what is orderly and reasonable. And it
is on this basis that the Stoics proclaimed that every human being is a λόγος
σπερματικὸς (logos spermatikos), a seed of reason.

It was the Sophists and Aristotle who used the word logos to refer to discourse,
reasoned discourse, or argumentation. Logic was studied in ancient times in order that
one may learn to distinguish good from bad arguments, and so become more effective
in argument, and perhaps also become a better person. To date, these remain an ob-
jective in having Logic as a subject in college. The aim is to develop in the student the
ability to appraise arguments and in this way become a better thinker enabling her to
effectively communicate her arguments in coherent and logical ways.

In this manual, the development of formal and conditional reasoning is given

greater importance. In formal reasoning, the student is directed to recognizing the form
or structure of an argument and discovers the internal consistency of premises and the
conclusion drawn from them. On the other hand, in conditional reasoning the student
learns to make logical inferences or conclusions from claims/premises whose truths
are simply assumed. Herein, thinking is done on the basis of symbols and assumed
truth-values, without necessarily tied to actual events in the real world. What matters
here is the logical truth and not empirical truth. This is the principle behind hypothetical
thinking where the student needs to acquire symbolic skills to deal with ideas rather
than with facts and objects. The focus on propositional and symbolic logic is specifical-
ly aimed at improving the student’s ability to postulate on what may be, on what can
be, or on what is possible.

7
 Philosophers and psychologists point to the importance of abstraction and for-
mal reasoning. These abilities are seen as hallmarks of adult and scientific thinking
and are considered as examples of a cognitive capacity that differentiates the human
from nonhuman beings. Furthermore, the ability to follow simple sets of rules even if
these rules are relatively arbitrary is a reflection of consciousness and cognitive self-
control. Therefore, it is a modest aim of this Logic manual to contribute in developing
the student’s ability to follow and coordinate rules leading to her ability to engage in
greater conscious reflection. In this case, Logic is an important opportunity to develop
and strengthen our reasoning abilities.

We hope you share with us this noble undertaking.

8
 PART

ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC

I. PROPOSITIONS

A word by itself can only point to the object it does represent and so it cannot be
assumed to be ‘factual’ or ‘meaningful’. It cannot convey a complete thought or idea. It re-
mains meaningless and useless in the process of argumentation unless it is attached to
another word (or words). When two or more words are put together then a statement can
be formed; a fact or a meaningful idea is created. In logic this is technically referred to as
“proposition”.

A proposition is a string of words said to be meaningful by virtue of the idea or

fact it conveys. Every word that it contains is treated always in relation to the other so that
eventually all of the words collectively convey an idea. It should become clearer at this
point what we mean by the word “proposition” (where an idea is being “proposed”), and
even by the word “statement” (where an idea is being “stated”).

Moreover, because of the idea or fact being conveyed, a proposition acquires a

value (true or false) so that any meaningful proposition can either be true or false.
Another characteristic of a proposition having a value is that it must be in a declarative form
(where an idea is being “declared”) as distinguished from other forms such as interrogative,
exclamatory, command, clause (dependent) and others. Aristotelian logic further requires
that a proposi-tion must be in the present tense and this is due to the reasoning that only
an idea occur-ring at the present can be proven to be true or false; there is no way to
prove anything in the past as well as in the future for it can never be concrete.

Below are examples of propositions:

1. Logic is a basic subject.

2. Saint Louis University is a Christian institute.

3. A lot of students are foreigners.

4. None among the employees are exempted from paying

taxes.

5. Majority of the students are not from Cordillera.

9
10
 EXERCISE 01

State whether the following group of words are propositions or not.

1. That the proposition is true or false.

2. The current president of the Philippines is a woman.
3. Come with me to watch a movie.
4. Aristotle was a philosopher.
5. Nobody is in the classroom.

6. Here comes the band!

7. Jose Rizal is a national hero.
8. Horses have three legs.
9. What do you want me to do?
10. The most common language in the Philippines is Tagalog.

11. Hand in your test papers when you are finished.

12. Respect for elders is an important virtue in the Philippines.
13. Stand up when you are spoken to.
14. Did you see Carlos punch Ivan?
15. The midterm exam is on April 29.

16. The plan for the day.

17. Baguio is the capital of the Philippines.
18. Do not speak if your mouth is full!
19. Anyone can be a suspect.
20. There are only 25 students in the class.

21. I love you!

22. Crystal dances.
23. Love is kind and patient.
24. In order for students to study well.
25. Teachers are cute.

11
12
A. TERMS IN A PROPOSITION

Aristotelian logic is primarily concerned with the relationship of classes or terms in a

proposition. A proposition usually contains two classes or terms, one of which is desig-
nated as the “subject class/term”, while the other the “predicate class/term”. This is the
reason why Aristotelian logic can also be referred to as “Logic of Classes”, or “Logic of
Terms”.

A class or a term is actually a “noun” and by being so it does signify a group of indi-
viduals, objects, places or events having common characteristics. Take as an example
the term “student”- it is a noun (also referred to as common noun in the English lan-
guage) that points to any individual having the characteristics of going to school and stud-
ying. In a way, it is a form of classification or categorization, where individuals are said to
be members of a certain class or category (of student). Eventually, propositions in Aristo-
telian logic will also be referred to as “categorical propositions” since they will be contain-
ing subject and predicates which are basically considered both as classes/terms/
categories.

B. QUANTITY OF TERMS

This specifically applies to the subject terms and there are four ways of quantifying
them namely: singular, collective, universal and particular.

1. A term is singular when it refers to a single individual, object, place or event:

 Maria studies hard.

 That table is in need of repair.
 Baguio is no longer a clean and safe city.
 The Panagbenga festival has become a commercial affair.

It can also be applied to its plural form but maintaining singularity hence referring to a
single group of individuals, objects, places or events:

 The students are working on their project.

 Those chairs are not for sale.

2. A term is collective when it signifies several members but to be considered collective-

ly as one:

 The Senate resumes its sessions today.

 The varsity is performing well.
 The staff meets today
 The committee rejects the proposed curriculum.

13
3. A term is universal when it uses or intends to mean the quantifier all, or its
equivalents:

 All students are humans.

 Every classroom in the university is occupied.

A term can also be considered as universal when all possible members/

components of the class are being referred to:

 The teachers of SLU must attend the graduation ceremonies.

 A carabao is a sign of wealth among Filipinos.

4. A term is particular when it refers to a partial number of members/

components usually with the quantifier some, or its equivalents. In some
cases the subject term may be presented in its general form but in reality it
refers to partiality relative to a whole.

• Tilapias are delicious.

• Several students are studious.

 An apple is red.

NOTE
For purposes of determining the quantity of propositions (page 18) and
translating non-standard statements to their standard forms (page 25), the
quantities of terms will eventually merge into two:
 Universal — singular, collective, universal
 Particular — particular

14
 EXERCISE 02

State whether the following (underlined) terms are singular, collective, universal or par-
ticular.

1. The Senate ends their session today.

2. Aristotle is the father of Biology.
3. That girl is very talented.
4. Some Koreans are pastors.
5. Every school must be conducive for learning.

6. The varsity team lost the game.

7. A student is expected to wear I.D. while in the campus.
8. The student who jumped has transferred to another school.
9. Several teachers are not married.
10. This bottle needs recycling.

11. The flock is lost.

12. Saint Louis University is in Mindanao.
13. Maria dances very gracefully.
14. A table is meant for writing.
15. The choir sings beautifully.

16. She who talks a lot listens not.

17. Most employees do not agree with the administration.
18. Any individual can fight for his/her right.
19. Sausage is delicious.
20. Those chairs are broken.

21. The faculty never meets.

22. Rice fields are everywhere.
23. The party is over.
24. No one is around.
25. Most freshmen are from the lowlands.

15
16
II. CATEGORICAL PROPOSITONS

A proposition relates two classes, or categories and we refer to it as categorical prop-

osition. The classes involved are represented respectively by the subject term and
the predicate term. There are four types of propositions and they can be differentiated
first by way of the inclusion/exclusion theory:

 A proposition that asserts that the whole subject class is included in the predicate
class;
 A proposition that asserts that the whole subject class is excluded from the predicate
class;
 A proposition that asserts that the part of the subject class is included in the predicate
class;
 A proposition that asserts that the part of the subject class is excluded from the predi-
cate class.

A. STANDARD FORMS:

A All S are P
E No S are P
I Some S are P
O Some S are not P

 A proposition is in standard form if and only if it is a substitution instance of one of the

above forms. The following are examples for each of the forms:

A All students are humans.

E No dogs are students.

I Some teachers are foreigners.

O Some Louisians are not Filipinos.

 A proposition in standard form also contains a copula, or a linking verb, joining the
subject term and the predicate term. Other forms: is, has, have.

17
B. QUANTITY OF PROPOSITIONS

The quantity of a proposition is either universal or particular. A proposition is

universal if it affirms something about all the members of the subject class,
which is the case with All S are P and No S are P. A proposition is particular if it as-
serts something about two or more members (but not all) of the subject class, which
is the case with Some S are P and Some S are not P.

C. QUALITY OF PROPOSITIONS

The quality of a proposition is either affirmative or negative. A proposition is

affirmative if it affirms something about the subject class, which is the case
with All S are P and Some S are P. A proposition is negative if it denies something
of the subject class, which is the case with No S are P and Some S are not P.

18
 EXERCISE 03

Determine the quantity and quality of the following propositions:

1. Many Filipinos are farmers.

2. All Filipinos are Asians.
3. No human being is infallible.
4. Andres Bonifacio is a national hero.
5. Majority of Filipinos are not rich.

6. The soldiers never left the camp.

7. All elements are composed of protons and electrons.
8. Some babies are born prematurely.
9. Mr. Espiritu is not a saint.
10. Only the good die young.

11. This book is not for sale.

12. Nothing tried, nothing gained.
13. The Philippines has many islands.
14. Those chairs are not usable.
15. The teachers are protesting.

16. Saint Louis University is in Mindanao.

17. Maria dances very gracefully.
18. A table is meant for writing.
19. The choir sings beautifully.
20. She who talks a lot listens not.

21. Most employees don’t agree with the administration.

22. Every school must be conducive for learning.
23. The varsity team lost the game.
24. Many freshmen are from the lowlands.
25. That bottle needs recycling.

19
20
H. DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS

Distribution is another property of propositions that needs consideration. It refers to

whether or not a certain class says something about all or part of another class:

‘A’ proposition – “All Filipinos are humans”, the subject term says something about every
member of the class that the term (Filipinos) denotes and so it is distributed, whereas
the predicate term makes reference to only some of the members of the class that the
term (humans) denotes and so it is undistributed. Another way of saying it is that all
Filipinos can be humans but not all humans can be Filipinos.

‘E’ proposition – “No students are monkeys”, the subject term says something about
every member of the class that the term (students) denotes and so it is distributed,
likewise the predicate term too makes reference to every the member of the class that
the term (monkeys) denotes and so it is also distributed. The proposition can also be
understood as saying that if all the students exclude themselves from being monkeys
and so are the monkeys from being humans.

‘I’ proposition – “Some students are foreigners”, the subject term says something about
only a part of the members of the class that the term (students) denotes and so it is
undistributed, likewise the predicate term too makes reference to only some of
the members of the class that the term (foreigners) denotes and so it is also undis-
tributed.

‘O’ proposition – “Some Louisians are not Filipinos”, the subject term says something
about only a part of the members of the class that the term (Louisians) denotes and
so it is undistributed, whereas the predicate term makes reference to only some of
the members of the class that the term (Filipinos) denotes and so it is distributed.

I. SUMMARY: Categorical Propositions and their Characteristics.

Distribution of Terms
STANDARD FORMS Quantity Quality
Subject Predicate

A All S are P universal affirmative distributed undistributed

E No S are P universal negative distributed distributed

I Some S are P particular affirmative undistributed undistributed

O Some S are not P particular negative undistributed distributed

21
22
 EXERCISE 04

Assign the appropriate letter (by way of the quantity and quality) to the following proposi-
tions and underline the distributed terms while encircle (or box) the undistributed terms.

1. O* Several teachers are not married. ( particular-negative ► O* )

2. ____This bottle needs recycling.
3. ____All elements are composed of protons and electrons.
4. ____Some babies are born prematurely.
5. ____Saint Louis University is in Mindanao.

6. ____Most Filipinos are not rich.

7. ____The soldiers never left the camp.
8. ____This book is not for sale.
9. ____She who talks a lot listens not.
10. ____Mr. Espiritu is not a saint.

11. ____Only the good die young.

12. ____The Philippines has many islands.
13. ____Nothing tried, nothing gained.
14. ____Grass does not grow anywhere.
15. ____Those chairs are not usable.

16. ____A lot of students are not serious with their studies.
17. ____Time is gold.
18. ____An apple is green.
19. ____Joey is not a man.
20. ____Not every chance is an opportunity.

21. ____Most employees do not agree with the administration.

22. ____Every school must be conducive for learning.
23. ____The varsity team is winning.
24. ____Many freshmen are from the lowlands.
25. ____That bottle needs recycling.

23
24
III. TRANSLATING STATEMENTS INTO STANDARD FORMS

One of the requirements of syllogistic reasoning is to ensure that the statements to be

used are in accordance with the formats prescribed which, basically, are the four stand-
ard forms (A E I O). Unless it is grammatically inappropriate to transform or re-
write and where assigning a letter is more than enough, statements should assume one
of the forms.

Below are types of statements we usually encounter everyday and can be consid-
ered as outside the standard forms with their corresponding translations.

NON-STANDARD STATEMENTS:

A. General Statements: statements without quantifiers where the predicate is

attributed generally or universally to the subject, however, it is possible that they
can have specific or particular (in terms of quantity) usage if based on real-life situa-
tions; possible translations - A, E, I, O.

Examples:

Humans are mammals.

 All humans are mammals. (A)
Humans are not amphibians.
 No humans are amphibians. (E)
Students are Filipinos.
 Some students are Filipinos. (I)
Classrooms in the university are not clean.
 Some classrooms in the university are not clean. (O)

B. Ordinary Statements: statements with quantifiers but considered still as non -

standard since they are not with the standard quantifiers (All, Some, No); possible
translations - A, E, I, O.

Standard Quantifiers and their Equivalents:

All = Any (body/one/thing) ..., Every (body/one/thing) ..., Always, Only, 100 %.
No = None, No one, Nobody, Nothing, Never, not, but, except, zero %.
Some = Many, Plenty of…, A number of…, A few…, A lot of…, Several, Almost,
Most, Majority, Minority, Sometimes, Seldom, 1-99 %.

25
 Examples:
Any Filipino can sing the national anthem.
 All Filipinos are singers of the national anthem. (A)
None among foreign students are taking the NSTP courses.
 No foreign students are taking the NSTP courses. (E)
A lot of students come from the provinces.
 Some students are people who come from the provinces. (I)
Not all students use the internet.
 Some students are not internet users. (O)

C. Singular Statements: statements that refer to a single (one) person, object,

event or group. For translation purposes, these statements are not to be rewritten
or modified in any way whatsoever otherwise they will lose their intended meanings.
Assigning a letter to a singular statement is more than enough to obtain the stand-
ard form; possible translations – A, E.

Examples:
The president of the school is a Filipino. (A)
Mr. Cipriano is not handsome. (E)

D. Exclusive Statements: statements that express exclusivity of a class

(predicate) to another class (subject). When translated, or rewritten, there is a need
to change the order, or places, of the subject and predicate in order to attain a
meaningful proposition; possible translation – A

Examples:
Only men can be priests.
 All priests are men. (A)
None but women give birth.
 All birth-givers are women. (A)

E. Exceptive Statements – statements that express exception or exclusion of a class

(subject) from another class (predicate); possible translation – E

Examples:
All except boys may attend.
 No boys are attendees. (E)
Everyone but Ronnie arrives on time.
 Ronnie does not arrive on time. (E)

F. “Not all/every/any...” is to be translated as “O” proposition.

26
 EXERCISE 05
Identify the type of statement (General, Ordinary, Singular, Exclusive and Exceptive) and
assign the appropriate letter (A, E, I, O).

1. A lot of Louisians are cheating.

2. An apple is red.
3. Only women are mothers.
4. Not all Louisians love their studies.
5. Anyone but the retarded is a liar.

6. Mothers love their children.

7. Everyone should be responsible for his/her own actions.
8. Lucy is a good student.
9. No one except children may watch the show.
10. Several teachers look after of their students.

11. Anybody but lazy individuals can be successful.

12. Dogs eat bones.
13. Fiestas are always joyful.
14. Women are allowed to be ordained.
15. Many students can't pay their tuition fees.

16. Today is cold.

17. Students must always wear I.D.'s.
18. Ilocanos are stingy.
19. Dean Espiritu is not a national hero.
20. None but Asians eat rice.

21. Students are not cheating.

22. Everyone except students pay taxes.
23. Dogs do not meow.
24. The president of the school is a priest.
25. Not all soldiers are brave.

27
28
IV. SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

The four standard propositions, if put alongside each other in pairs, will convey logical
relationships which can be characterized as oppositional by virtue of the truth values each
of the propositions assume. If one proposition, for example, is assumed to be true then
most likely the other will assume an opposing, if not doubtful, truth value and that it is false.
In short, these propositions display a logical opposition to each other.

By investigating the logical opposition between these propositions, we will be able to

establish the truth and falsity of each one. Moreover, such process will help us detect and
correct errors in argumentation.

UNIVERSAL

A CONTRARIES
E

FALSITY
SUBALTERNS

SUBALTERNS
AFFIRMATIVE

NEGATIVE
CONTRADICTORIES
TRUTH

SUBCONTRARIES
I O
PARTICULAR

29
A. OPPOSITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS:

1. CONTRADICTORIES: statements that are opposite in terms of quantity,

quality and distribution of terms; cannot be both true and cannot be both false.
(A↔O) & (E↔I)
2. CONTRARIES: both statements are universal but are opposite in terms
of quality; cannot be both true but maybe both false. (A↔E)
3. SUBCONTRARIES: both statements are particular but they are opposite
in terms of quality; maybe both true but cannot be both false. (I↔O)
4. SUBALTERNS: both statements are either affirmative or negative but
they are opposite in terms of quantity.
a. TRUTH – the truth of the universal implies the truth in the particular and
not vice-versa. (A→I) & (E→O)
b. FALSITY – the falsity of the particular involves the falsity of the universal
and not vice-versa. (I→A) & (O→E)

NOTE
Singular statements (A & E) can have their contraries only.

B. RULES:

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

2. If E is true, A is false, I is false, O is true.
3. If I is true, A is undetermined, E is false, O is undetermined.
4. If O is true, A is false, E is undetermined, I is undetermined.
5. If A is false, E undetermined, I is undetermined, O is true.
6. If E is false, A is undetermined, I is true, O is undetermined.
7. If I is false, A is false, E is true, O is true.
8. If O is false, A is true, E is false, I is true.

30
 EXERCISE 06
Provide the Contradictories/Contraries/Sub-contraries/Subalterns of the following state-
ments. Also, determine the truth value of the 2nd and 3rd (whichever is applicable) assuming
that the given statements are all true.
Example:
All humans are mammals. (TRUE)
Contradictory – Some humans are not mammals. (FALSE)
Contrary – No humans are mammals. (FALSE)
Subcontrary – not applicable
Subaltern – Some humans are mammals. (TRUE)

1. No students are tax payers.(TRUE)

2. Today is cold.(TRUE)

3. All students must wear their identification cards.(TRUE)

4. Some Ilocanos are stingy.(TRUE)

5. Dean Espiritu is not a national hero.(TRUE)

6. All Asians eat rice.(TRUE)

31
7. Some students are not cheaters.(TRUE)

8. No dogs are meowing animals.(TRUE)

9. The president of the school is a priest.(TRUE)

10. Some soldiers are not brave.(TRUE)

32
 EXERCISE 07
Determine the truth values of the second statements given that all first statements are al-
ready with truth values:

1. No one except men can be priests. (TRUE)

Most priests are men.

2. Maria is a man. (FALSE)

Maria is not a man.

3. Students do not visit the library. (TRUE)

Every student visit the library.

4. Filipinos are hospitable. (FALSE)

Majority of Filipinos are hospitable.

5. Koreans are Asians. (TRUE)

Not a single Korean is Asian.

6. None among students are cheating. (FALSE)

Not all students are cheating.

7. A lot of women are beautiful. (TRUE)

Several women are not beautiful.

8. Apples are always red. (FALSE)

Some apples are red.

9. Dean Espiritu is not a national hero. (TRUE)

Dean Espiritu is a national hero.

10. Horses have three legs. (FALSE)

Most horses don't have three legs.

33
34
IV. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Aristotle developed a unique type of reasoning and called it “syllogism”. It is unique be-
cause it comprises only three (categorical) statements of which two are designated as
premises and one conclusion. Such type of reasoning is totally in line with “deductive
method”, where a conclusion is drawn (deducted) from given premises. In the case of a
“syllogism”, a conclusion is drawn from two premises.

A. Components:

All humans are mammals. (PREMISE 1 = MAJOR PREMISE)

All students are humans. (PREMISE 2 = MINOR PREMISE)

Therefore, all students are mammals. (CONCLUSION)

B. Components According to Terms:

M P
All humans are mammals. (PREMISE 1 = MAJOR PREMISE)
S M
All students are humans. (PREMISE 2 = MINOR PREMISE)

S P
Therefore, all stu- dents are mammals. (CONCLUSION)

1. Major Term (P) – present in the first premise (thereby becoming the Major
Premise) and in the conclusion as predicate.
2. Minor Term (S) – present in the second premise (thereby becoming the Minor
Premise) and in the conclusion as subject.
3. Middle Term (M) – appears in both premises but not in the conclusion.

35
C. The Form of the Syllogism:

1. Figure — refers to the location and arrangement of the terms (major, minor &
middle) in a syllogism. The different figures are as follows:

M P P M M P P M
S M S M M S M S
 S P  S P  S P  S P

FIG. 1 FIG. 2 FIG. 3 FIG. 4

NOTE
 To easily familiarize yourself with the different figures you may trace the
location/pattern of the middle term (M).
 The symbol “" is used to signify the word "therefore".

2. Mood — refers to the types of statements that comprise a syllogism. The syl-

logism below is with the following types: AAA.

(A) All humans are mammals.

(A) All students are humans.
(A) Therefore, all students are mammals.

3. Form — merging the mood and figure, hence the syllogism above is with the

form: AAA 1

NOTE

 With four types of statement (A, E, I, O) and four ways of arranging the
terms (P, S, M), it is possible to have 256 different constructions, and as
to their validity, ways of testing are surely needed to distinguish the valid
from those that are not.

36
 EXERCISE 08

Determine the mood and figure of the followings syllogisms

1. Students are mammals.

Most mammals are not rational
Therefore, all rational creatures are students.

2. Every college graduate is an achiever.

Only college graduates can be teachers.
Therefore, any teacher is an achiever.

3. Most flowers are beautiful.

Women are beautiful.
Therefore, a lot of women are flowers.

4. Every student is a mammal.

Almost all mammals are not amphibians.
Therefore, none but students are amphibians.

5. Plenty of teachers are not Chinese.

Every Chinese is Asian.
Therefore, all except Asians are teachers.

6. Many teachers are married.

Any married person is unfree.
Therefore, a lot of persons who are unfree are not teachers.

7. Students are not Asians.

A few students are not Koreans.
Therefore, none among the Koreans are Asians.

37
8. None among rational people kill.
Every human is rational.
Therefore, no humans are killers.

9. Several students are hard-working.

A few students are not Filipinos.
Therefore, anybody but a Filipino is hard-working.

10. Almost every teacher is not rich.

Every rich individual is lucky.
Therefore, none among the lucky persons are teachers.

11. Several students do not study hard.

Every Louisian is a student.
Therefore, none except those who study hard are Louisians.

12. Almost all students write on walls and tables.

A few students are good looking.
Therefore, all good looking persons write on walls and tables.

13. Only women can give birth.

Mario is not a woman.
Therefore, Mario can not give birth.

14. Most politicians are not honest.

Any politician is a public servant.
Therefore, some public servants are not honest.

15. All Christian institutions are compassionate.

SLU is a Christian institution.
Therefore, SLU should be compassionate.

38
V. TESTING THE VALIDITY OF SYLLOGISM

The primary concern of Logic is to evaluate arguments as to their validity or acceptabil-

ity. Since this is specifically Formal Logic, evaluation is directed primarily to the form (or
structure) of syllogisms, how they are constructed or how their respective components
are structured. For this purpose, two methods will be employed: The Traditional Rules
and the Venn Diagrams.

A. The Traditional Rules

In constructing or evaluating a syllogism there are rules that need to be followed in

order to determine or attain validity. There are five basic rules set by traditional logi-
cians and all of which will govern the format or structure of syllogisms - violating any
of these rules would mean an invalid or a fallacious syllogism. Moreover, a corre-
sponding formal fallacy is committed for every rule that is violated.

1] Rule 1: There should be three and only three terms in a syllogism.

 This rule specifically applies to the middle term where, while it ap-
pears in both premises, one meaning should be maintained.

NOTE

 It would be helpful at this point to assign the mood (A, E, I, O), figure
( P, S, M) and distribution of terms ( dist., undist—page 21) to the syllo-
gism being tested for validity.

Example:
Mdist Pundist
(A) A star is a heavenly body.
S dist M undist
(A) Angel Locsin is a star.
S dist P undist
(A) Therefore, Angel Locsin is a heavenly body.

Violation: Fallacy of Four Terms.

 Note that the term star in the major premise has a different meaning
from that in the minor premise which makes the middle terms count-
ed as two instead of one.

2] Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed at least once.

 This concerns the distribution of terms of the middle terms present in
both premises.

39
 Example:
P dist M undist
(A) All Filipinos are Asians.
M undist S dist
(O) Many Asians do not eat rice.
S undist P dist
(O) Therefore, some of those who eat rice are not Filipinos.

Violation: Fallacy of Undistributed Middle.

 The middle term “Asians” is undistributed in both instances, major
and minor premises, that it appears.

3] Rule 3: If a term is distributed in the conclusion (minor or major), then

it must also be distributed in the premise.

Example 1:
P dist M undist
(A) All Louisians are students.
M undist S undist
(I) Some students are Ateneans.
S dist P undist
(A) Therefore, all Ateneans are Louisians.

Violation a: Fallacy of Illicit Minor.

 The minor term “Ateneans” is distributed in the conclusion while
it is undistributed in the premise. Furthermore, the syllogism also
violates Rule 2 thereby committing the fallacy of undistributed
middle.

Example 2:
M dist P undist
(A) All employees are taxpayers.
M undist S dist
(O) Most employees are not rich.
S dist P dist
(E) None among the rich are taxpayers.

Violation b: Fallacy of Illicit Major.

 The major term “taxpayers” is distributed in the conclusion while
it is undistributed in the premise.

40
4] Rule 4:Two negative premises are not allowed.

Example:

(E) None among Filipinos are astronauts.

(O) Several Filipinos are not educated people.
(O) Therefore, many uneducated people are not astronauts.

Violation: Fallacy of Exclusive Terms.

 Both premises are negative and that the terms Filipinos, astronauts
and educated people each convey exclusivity in relation to each
other; as if they are rejecting one another and it would be pointless
to draw a valid conclusion. The above example is with a combina-
tion of E & O statements and it is also true to other combina-
tions such as E & E, O & O and O & E, regardless of the quality
of the conclusion.

5] Rule 5: One negative premise is allowed provided the conclusion is

also negative.

Example:

(A) Any student must buy an internet card.

(O) Some students are not rich.
(A) Any rich individual buys an internet card.

Violation: Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative

premise.
 The conclusion is affirmative and it is drawn from premises where
one is negative. The fallacy can also be committed if both premises
are negative.

6] Rule 6: Two universal premises should not have a particular conclusion.

Example:

(A) All students are humans.

(E) None among monkeys are humans.
(O) Therefore, not all monkeys are students.

Violation: Fallacy of drawing a particular conclusion from two universal

premises.
 The violation can also be referred to as Existential Fallacy.

41
42
 EXERCISE 09

Test the validity of the following syllogisms by way of the Traditional Rules:

1. Students are mammals.

Most mammals are not rational
Therefore, all rational creatures are students.

2. Every college graduate is an achiever.

Only college graduates can be teachers.
Therefore, any teacher is an achiever.

3. Most flowers are beautiful.

Women are beautiful.
Therefore, a lot of women are flowers.

4. Every student is a mammal.

Almost all mammals are not amphibians.
Therefore, none but students are amphibians.

5. Plenty of teachers are not Chinese.

Every Chinese is Asian.
Therefore, all except Asians are teachers.

6. Students are not Asians.

A few students are not Koreans.
Therefore, none among the Koreans are Asians.

43
7. None among rational people kill.
Every human is rational.
Therefore, no humans are killers.

8. Several students are hard-working.

A few students are not Filipinos.
Therefore, anybody but a Filipino is hard-working.

9. Almost every teacher is not rich.

Every rich individual is lucky.
Therefore, none among the lucky persons are teachers.

10. Several students do not study hard.

Every Louisian is a student.
Therefore, none except those who study hard are Louisians.

11. Almost all students write on walls and tables.

A few students are good looking.
Therefore, all good looking persons write on walls and tables.

12. Only women can give birth.

Mario is not a woman.
Therefore, Mario can not give birth.

44
B. Venn Diagrams:

John Venn was a 19th century logician and, being one of the modern logicians who
tried to interpret and improve the Aristotelian logic, developed a way to test syllo-
gisms. Basing himself on George Boole’s interpretation of the categorical state-
ments, Venn further applied such interpretation to categorical syllogisms, which we
would now call “Venn Diagrams”.

1] Diagramming Categorical Statements:

The diagram involves two overlapping circles and each of which represents a
term in a categorical statement – the left circle represents the subject (S)
while the right circle represents the predicate (P). The following are the dia-
grams of the four categorical statements:

A - All S are P

S P

E - No S are P

S P

X I - Some S are P

S P

X
O - Some S are not P

S P

45
2] Diagramming Categorical Syllogisms:

The diagram already involves three overlapping/intersecting circles represent-

ing the three terms (major, minor and middle) of a syllogism. As it is shown
below, each circle represents a term while it remains overlapped/intersected
by the other two circles, so that every area or point of intersection shows a
certain point and extent of domain of one or two (overlapping) or three
(intersecting) of the terms involved.

S SP P
SPM
SM PM

3] Summary of where and how to diagram the three statements of a syllo-

gism:

CONCLUSION
NO E

PR AJO
MI MIS

M
R

EM R
E

ISE
PR

46
4] Step-by-step diagramming of syllogism:

NOTE

In diagramming a syllogism certain rules must be followed to ensure

accuracy of interpretation:

 The universal premise should be diagrammed first if the syllogism con-

tains a particular premise.
 The letter X should be placed on the line dissecting an area if the
whole area is so designated in the premise. If part of the area has al-
ready been shaded, the X goes to the un-shaded part.
 Only the premises should be diagrammed. If a syllogism is valid, the
conclusion will be self-evident.
 A syllogism committing the fallacy of four terms should not be dia-
grammed.

Example 1:
(Syllogism with two universal premises)

(A) All students are humans.

(E) No humans are amphibians.
(E) Therefore, no amphibians are students.

Step 1: Assign the terms (major-students; minor-amphibians; middle-humans)

to their respective circles.

amphibians students

humans

47
 Step 2: Diagram the major premise.

amphibians students

All students are humans.

humans

Step 3: Diagram the minor premise.

amphibians students

No humans are amphibians.

humans
Step 4: See if the conclusion can be read off in the dia-
grammed premises. The conclusion is not to be diagrammed but in
the case of this example it will be diagrammed for demonstration pur-
poses.

amphibians students amphibians students

Therefore, no amphibians are students.

humans The syllogism (AEE4) is VALID since

the conclusion can be read off in the
premises.

48
 Example 2:
(Syllogism with a combination of universal and particular premises)

(A) Any employee is a taxpayer.

(I) Some taxpayers are poor individuals.
(I) Therefore, some poor individuals are employees.

Step 1:

poor employees

taxpayers

Step 2:

poor employees

Any employee is a taxpayer.

taxpayers
Step 3:

poor employees
X

Some taxpayers are poor.

taxpayers

49
Step 4:

poor employees poor employees

X
Therefore, some poor individuals are employees.
taxpayers
The syllogism (AII4) is INVALID since the
conclusion (X) is not evident in the premises.

Example 3:
(Syllogism with a combination of universal and particular premises)

(E) No dogs are rational.

(I) Some dogs are cute animals.
(O) Therefore, some cute animals are not rational.

Step 1:
cute rational

Step 2: dogs

cute rational

No dogs are rational.

dogs

50
 Step 3:

cute rational

Some dogs are cute animals.

dogs

NOTE

Part of the area intended for the X is already shaded and so it is moved to
the remaining un-shaded part.

Step 4:

cute rational cute rational

X
X

Therefore, some cute animals are not rational.

dogs
The syllogism (EIO3) is VALID.

Example 4:
(Syllogism with two particular premises)

(O) Some employees are not married.

(I) Some employees are Cordillerans.
(O) Therefore, some Cordillerans are not married.

51
 Step 1:

Cordi married

employees
Step 2:

Cordi married

X
Some employees are not married.

Step 3: employees

Cordi married
X

X
Some employees are Cordillerans.
Step 4:
employees

Cordi married Cordi married

X
X

Therefore, some Cordillerans are not married.

employees
The syllogism (OIO3) is INVALID.

52
 EXERCISE 10

Test the validity of the following syllogisms by way of the Venn Diagrams:
1] Every college graduate is an achiever. Therefore, some Filipinos are not priests.
Only college graduates can be instructors.
Therefore, all instructors are achievers.

5] All utts are pitts.

All pitts are mitts.
2] A ruler is 12 inches long. Therefore, all mitts are utts.
Gloria Arroyo is a ruler.
Therefore, Gloria Arroyo is 12 inches long.

6] Not all X are W.

All X are Z.
3] Students are mammals. Therefore, not all Z are W.
Most mammals are not rational
Therefore, all rational creatures are stu-
dents.

4] No priests are nuns.

Some Filipinos are not nuns.

53
7] Students are not Asians. Therefore, none among lucky persons are
A few students are not Koreans. teachers
Therefore, none among Koreans are
Asians.

11]All frogs are am-

phibians.
8] None among rational people kill. Some amphibians are turtles.
Every human is rational. Therefore, some turtles are frogs.
Therefore, no humans are killers.

12]Many Filipinos are brown.

9] Several students are hard-working. Many Filipinos are hospitable.
A few students are not Filipinos. Therefore, many hospitable persons
Therefore, anybody but a Filipino is hard- are brown.
working.

10]Almost every teacher is not rich.

Every rich individual is lucky.

54
 PART

INFORMAL FALLACIES

I. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORMAL AND INFORMAL FALLACIES

The word fallacy is used by logicians to refer to errors of reasoning. It comes from the
Latin word fallere, which means “to deceive”. Specifically, the term is used to refer to argu-
ments which fail to establish firm foundations for their respective conclusions. There are two
classifications of fallacies as they are committed within or under two distinct types of argu-
mentation namely, formal and informal.

Formal fallacies belong to formal logic (Aristotelian/Traditional) where the valid-

ity of an argument (syllogism) is tested through its “structure” or “form”. The traditional rules
are meant to guide an arguer in formulating, or even in evaluating, a syllogism, and in so do-
ing, failure to follow them would mean committing an error (fallacy). Rule 1 determines the
number of terms (three terms only!), rules 2 and 3 concerned with the “distribution of terms”,
rule 4 and 5 with the “quality of statements” (affirmative/negative), and rule 6 with the
“quantity of statements” (universal/particular).

Informal fallacies belong to symbolic logic where the emphasis is on the

“content” of an argument rather than on the structure. Accordingly, an argument is evaluated
based on the reasoning (idea) that it contains, which is technically referred to as “evidence”.
“Evidence” is an important aspect of an argument without which a ‘pertinent’ and ‘valid’ con-
clusion cannot be drawn. It is, therefore, evaluated according to its relevance, sufficiency
and the manner (language or the use thereof) by which it is presented. As a rule, arguing
parties are expected to stick to whatever issue being argued upon, which means that they
are to present only pertinent evidence to support their conclusion. Deviation, intentionally or
not, from the issue by way of irrelevant, insufficient and wrongly expressed evidence would
mean committing an “informal fallacy”.

II. INFORMAL FALLACIES

A. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

The fallacies of relevance are traditionally known as ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of

what is needed to establish a conclusion). These fallacies share a common charac-
teristic of presenting irrelevant premises contributing to the inadmissibility of a conclu-
sion. In some cases, these fallacies may contain premises that are psychologically
relevant, however, the gesture of committing such fallacies, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, must be taken only as an emotional appeal virtually undermining the
need to produce genuine evidence.

55
1. Argumentum Ad Misericordiam
Appeal to Pity. This fallacy is committed when instead of presenting the
necessary evidence to support a conclusion, the arguer would rather resort to his/
her miseries or impoverished situations thereby evoking pity from the listener in
an effort to convince him/her to accept the conclusion.
However, some arguments that attempt to solicit sympathy or compassion differ
from the fallacious appeal to pity in that they supply information about why that
person in question deserves special consideration. Any attempt like this should
not prevent the listener or anyone concerned from extending help or giving spe-
cial consideration to the person in question.

Example:
Student to Teacher: I admit that I cheated during the exam, but if you will
give me a failing grade then I will lose my scholarship and probably discontinue
my studies. My family is very poor and the meager income of my father from farm-
ing is barely enough for our food. There is no way we can pay for my tuition fees.
Sir, please do not fail me.

2. Argumentum Ad Hominem
Appeal to Character or Argument Against the Person. This fallacy involves
two arguers where one of them directs his attention to the other arguer himself
instead of attacking the issue at hand. This can happen by verbally abusing (ad
hominem abusive) the opponent or by alluding to certain circumstances (ad homi-
nem circumstantial) that affect the opponent. The fallacy might as well be commit-
ted by the arguer whose person is being attacked if he returns the attack in the
same manner (tu quoque, “you too”).

Example:
Arguer 1: Smoking should be banned in all public places.
Arguer 2: There is no way you can convince me with what you are saying
because you yourself smoke a lot and at all places! (abusive)
Arguer 1: Banning in public places can prevent non -smokers from inhaling
second-hand smoke which is proven to be more dangerous than first-hand
smoke.
Arguer 2: I have known that your children are enrolled in a school where all
the teachers are chain smokers. Naturally you speak that way because you want
to protect your children! (circumstantial)
Arguer 1: I know you would reject my proposal because you are afraid your
business will go down. I am fully aware that your grocery store situated in front of
a school profits so much from cigarettes. You are very selfish and thinking only of
yourself! (“you too”)

56
3. Argumentum Ad Populum
Appeal to People. This fallacy occurs when a proposition is characterized by an
appeal to popular opinions or sentiments. The fallacy can occur in several ways
and one of which is when a proposition is claimed to be true because most, if not
all, people believe it to be true. It can happen even in cases where everyone
claims that a proposition must be true and yet it is not. If everyone were to believe
that the sun is made of ice, that would not make it a big ball of ice.
Example 1:
Student: “I will buy a cell phone unit because everybody has it.”
Another form of the fallacy occurs when one accepts or rejects something be-
cause most people do. This form of argumentum ad populum is often the basis of
advertisers in attracting potential buyers specifically when they say that their prod-
uct is preferred by more people than any other product.
Example 2:
Advertiser: “Why risk buying product x when our product is preferred by more
housewives in the world?”
It can also happen that politicians take advantage of this kind of argumentation
during campaign periods. It occurs whenever a politician uses “plain folks” argu-
ments, that is, claiming belongingness to or identification with the people.
Example 3:
Politician: “I know exactly who you are, what you need and what your dreams
are because I am just an ordinary fellow like you. I belong to you and so I am
more qualified to represent you in the congress”

4. Argumentum Ad Baculum
Appeal Force. The fallacy is committed when relevant evidence is substitut-
ed by an appeal to fear or intimidation. The arguer poses a conclusion to a person
and argues further by directly or indirectly threatening the latter. The threat can
either be physical or psychological and it is meant to force the listener into accept-
ing the conclusion.
Example 1:
Employee to Boss: “I deserve a raise in salary. Just to remind you of what I
know about you and your secretary. I am very much aware of your activities after
office hours. Besides, your wife and I are best friends so it will only take a cup of
coffee for her to know everything.”
Example 2:
Girl to boy: “If you will not marry me then I will not think twice about taking my
own life!”

57
5. Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
Appeal to Wrong Authority. The fallacy occurs when a testimony from an
unqualified authority is used to support a conclusion. As a rule, in order for a tes-
timony to be accepted it should be given by an expert or legitimate authority de-
pending on the issue being testified upon. However, it can happen that a single
person may have more than one expertise so his/her testimony can still be ac-
cepted even though he/she does not have the appropriate title.
Being irrelevant, the fallacy can also become just an insufficient fallacy in cases
where practically no one can be considered as sole authority. Issues like politics,
morals and religions call for no specific authority just as there is no conventional
wisdom applicable to any of them.
Example:
Arguer: “Attorney Diaz, the famous lawyer, has stated that upbringing of children
necessitates proper healthcare which means a good supply of vitamins, dental
care, regular visits to clinic and a balanced intake of nutritious food. In view of his
expertise as a lawyer, we must conclude that it is indeed true.”

6. Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
Appeal to Ignorance. The fallacy occurs in two ways: firstly, the argument that a
proposition is true because no one has proven that it is false and secondly, the
argument that a proposition is false because no one has proven that it is true.
Example:
Arguer: “People have been trying for centuries to provide a conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, so far no one has succeeded. Therefore, astrology is a
lot of nonsense.”

7. Non Sequitor
It does not follow. The fallacy is committed when in a certain argument the conclu-
sion does not follow logically or psychologically from the premises.
Example:
Arguer: My feet are painful, therefore I cannot eat.

8. Use of Flattery
The fallacy is committed when one attempts to persuade others by engaging in
excessive praise of people instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.
Example:
Arguer: “That, in sum is my proposal, ladies and gentlemen. You know that I trust
and value your judgment, and I am aware that I could not find a more astute panel
of experts to evaluate my suggestions. Thank you.”

58
B. FALLACIES OF SUFFICIENCY
Fallacies of insufficient evidence occur not in the same manner as fallacies of rele-
vance, and that they do not produce the same impact on a conclusion: fallacies of
relevance would rather render a conclusion inadmissible because of premises that
are logically irrelevant while fallacies of insufficient evidence will only weaken a con-
clusion because of premise/evidence that is not adequate enough to fully support it.

1. Hasty Generalization
The fallacy occurs when a conclusion concerning all the members of a group is
drawn from evidence that pertains to a selected or limited sample. As it should be,
a limited sample is not representative of the whole, which is also in conformity
with the Aristotelian square of opposition where the truth of the universal implies
the truth of the particular, but not the other way around.
Example:
Arguer: “Two weeks ago Mr. Masungit was accused of stealing the cell phone of
his seatmate. Just this morning, Mr. Masungit was seen extending his arm to-
wards the pocket of another student. Clearly, he is someone to be feared of and
should be avoided.”

2. Accident
The fallacy is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular situation. It
should be noted that the fallacy does not consist of arguing from a generalization
to specific instance of that generalization, rather, it is arguing from a generaliza-
tion to a special case.
Example:
Arguer: “While it is a crime to physically abuse someone, it is obvious that Manny
Pacquiao is a criminal because he physically attacks his opponents during bouts.”
(Physical attack is accidental to the profession of Manny Pacquiao as a boxer,
which would render the general rule concerning physical abuse inapplicable)

3. False Cause
The fallacy occurs when a premise contains an affirmation of the belief that a par-
ticular situation is always caused by another situation. The fallacy may occur in
different forms: post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore on account of
this”), presupposes that just because one event precedes another event the first
event causes the second event; non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the
cause’), when an effect is taken mistakenly as the cause.
The fallacy may come very convincing due to the difficulty of determining relation-
ship of events not to mention the difficulty of establishing which is causing which.

59
 Example 1:
(post hoc ergo)
Arguer: “Every time I bring an umbrella with me it would not rain and if I do not
bring an umbrella it would rain. Therefore, I will always bring my umbrella so it will
not rain.”
Example 2:
(non causa pro causa)
Arguer: “Deserving nursing students are assured of slots in the list of incoming
third years. Accordingly, every first and second year nursing student should be
assured of a slot in the list so they will study hard.”

4. False Dichotomy
The fallacy is also referred to as the “either-or fallacy”. It is committed when the
premise of an argument contains two usually extreme alternatives thereby creat-
ing the impression that there is no more room for any other alternative. Usually
the arguer intends to force the listener into accepting the alternative which is fa-
vorable (to the arguer), the listener, then, would have no choice but to accept un-
less he could risk accepting the undesirable one.
Example:
Mother to child: “Either you will enroll in St. Louis University or forget about ac-
quiring a college degree! I graduated from that university then it must be the right
place for you!”

5. Weak Analogy
Even though it is generally accepted that analogy is a way to explain or clarify a
point in a discussion or conversation for it brings out similarities of two situations
(one situation illuminating another situation), it can not fully support a conclusion
of an argument, that is, two or more things maybe similar in some respects but it
does not follow that they can still be similar in other respects. Accordingly, if a
conclusion is dependent entirely on an analogy then it is to be considered weak.
Example:
Arguer: “Having a wife is like owning a kite and letting it fly. You let her go wher-
ever she wishes and do whatever she wants but you are still in control. Imagine a
kite without a rope to control it. It will surely fly freely and most probably, disap-
pear forever, and so with your wife.”

6. Suppressed Evidence
The fallacy is committed whenever an arguer presents evidence in support of one
conclusion, or one side of the issue, while ignoring or suppressing evidence that
would support another conclusion. Usually, this fallacy is committed consciously
by salesmen whose intention is to convince potential customers into buying their
products.

60
 Example:
Landlady: “I have one of the best apartment units in this area of the city. They
are regularly maintained and potential tenants are usually screened as to their
behaviours and characters. Surely, you will like having one of the units.”
(The landlady may have ignored or intentionally suppressed other matters like
problems concerning supply of water and electricity, or that there is an obligatory
monthly increase)

8. Begging the Question:

There are several ways of committing this fallacy but common to these possibili-
ties is the failure to ask a question or set of questions before attempting to arrive
at a conclusion. Because of the absence or intentional omission of the question/s
wrong conclusions due to confusion is deemed likely to occur.
a. Complex Question
This form of “begging the question fallacy” occurs when an arguer poses a
question that presupposes an answer that is meant for a question that has not
been asked.
Example:
Lawyer to the accused: “Did you enjoy raping Maria?”
(The accused will be obliged to answer either yes or no but whatever his an-
swer would be it is meant for another question, that is, the answer begs for
another question like, “Did you rape Maria?”)
b. Assuming Too Much
This form occurs when a “questionable” premise is presented to support a
conclusion. The premise is usually a generalization, or “too much of an as-
sumption” about a subject. A prominent indicator of this fallacy is the quantifier
“all”.
Example:
Arguer: “All men are polygamous. Mr. Ladia is a man. Therefore, Mr. Ladia is
polygamous.”
(The first premise begs the question, “How does the arguer arrive at the as-
sumption that all men are polygamous?”)
c. Circular Argument (petitio principii)
The fallacy occurs when someone is arguing in circles, that is, he uses the
conclusion to support the premise in the same way that he uses that same
premise to prove the validity of that same conclusion. It can also be observed
that in such a case the proposition is affirmed twice resulting to nothing but
deception or confusion. In short, it begs the practical question, “What, or
where, is the point?”
Example:
Arguer: “Our teacher is insane because he is crazy, and he is crazy because
he is insane.”

61
 8. Fallacy of Novelty
It is consists in assuming that a new idea, law, policy, or action is better simply
because it is new.
Example:
Arguer: “Good Taste Restaurant is now under new management. I’m sure the
foods being offered there are now much cheaper and more delicious than before.”

C. FALLACIES OF EXPRESSION

1. Equivocation
The fallacy is committed when a single term is used with two or more meanings in
the same argument. It consists of the use of word that has the same spelling or
sound but the meaning is different in the different parts of the inference. It oper-
ates in using a term in a premise with the intention of tricking the person in ac-
cepting the terms as though it’s a natural part of the argument.
Examples:
a. Jasmin is a flower. My little baby is Jasmin. Therefore, My little baby is a flow-
er.
b. A paper is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore a paper cannot be
dark.

2. Amphiboly
The fallacy involves the use of sentences which can be interpreted in multiple
ways with equal justification. Also known as “Fallacy of Ambiguity,” this fallacy is
committed when there is an ambiguous use of a phrase or a sentence.
Examples:
a. The female student said to her male teacher, “Sir go out.” Is she asking per-
mission that she will go out? Or trying to command or tell her teacher that he
will go out?
b. She is cold.

3. Composition
The fallacy is committed when one assumes that what holds true of the individu-
als also holds true of the group.
Example:
The human body is made up of cells, which are invisible to the naked eye. There-
fore, the human body is invisible.

62
4. Division
The fallacy is committed when one assumes that what holds true of a group auto-
matically holds true of all the individuals in that group.
Example:
All human beings are conscious entities. Therefore, the cells in our bodies are
conscious entities.

5. Accent
The fallacy is committed when one changes the stress in the statement, thereby
creating a misunderstanding or confusion to the listener.
Examples:
a. No U-turn.
b. I resent her question.
c. Woman without her man is lost.

63
64
 EXERCISE 01

Identify the informal fallacies committed in the following statements or arguments.

1) "No one would buy a pair of shoes without trying them on first. So, why should anyone
be expected to get married without premarital sex?"

2) “As a businessman you certainly want to subscribe to the Forbes magazine. Virtually all
successful business executives subscribe to it.”

3) “I will never listen to whatever you will tell me. You accuse me of being corrupt, but look
at what you are doing. You ask from your students twice the amount of what they
should be paying. Isn’t that also corruption?”

4) “The sign said ‘fine for parking here’, and since it was fine, I parked there.”

5) "When water is poured on the top of a pile of rocks, it always trickles down to the rocks
at the bottom. Similarly, when rich people make lots of money, we can expect this mon-
ey to trickle down to the poor."

7) “Freedom of expression is clearly stated in the constitution as part of every citizen's

right. Mr. Pakinggan, therefore, should not be imprisoned for expressing in public his
sexual experiences.”

8) “The brick wall is six feet-tall. Thus, the bricks in the wall are six feet-tall.

9) "A night with another girl! You seem to be very happy and satisfied! Will you do it
again? "

10) "Senator Panfilo Lacson announced in a press conference that homosexuality is a sin
and against the will of God. In view of Mr.Lacson’s expertise on legislation, we must
conclude that homosexuality is indeed a sin.”

11) "No one has proven yet that there is life beyond the planet earth so it must be true that
there is no life 'out there' after all.”

12) “She saw the farmer with binoculars.”

13) "President Marcos ceased into power because of people power, and so with President
Estrada. Therefore, any elected president of the country will be evicted by way of peo-
ple power."

65
14) “Sign in a Laundromat: “Automatic washing machines: Please remove all your clothes
when the light goes out.”

15) "To allow every person an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the
whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interests of the com-
munity, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of expressing his/
her sentiments."

16) "The position should be awarded to Mr. Pogi-it because he has a very sickly wife and
six hungry children to feed."

17) "As freshmen of this university, you must realize that you can either have a good time
during your college years or you can acquire a prestigious academic record. Whichever
course you choose, you should begin to concentrate all your energy toward your goal."

18) “Why are you asking me about Mary’s message? I resent her question.”

19) "Well, it's for your own good and peace of mind that you join our fraternity. We are the
most feared fraternity, not to mention our great capability to harm. It is to ensure your
safety!"

20) “Teachers are difficult to deal with so I would not mind considering Mr. Cipriano as one
because he is a teacher.”

21) "This washing machine has a larger load capacity than any in the market. The motor
and working parts are guaranteed for one year. Delivery and installation is free, and
easy financing is available. Need I say more?"

21) "If a family consistently spends more than it takes in, it will sooner or later end up bank-
rupt. Similarly, if our government continues to spend more than its revenue, it too will
end up bankrupt. Indeed, unclear policy about spending can cause national disaster."

21) "Life is full of trials and tribulations! For what can one achieve from brushing his/her
teeth three to five times a day?"

24) "Mr. Ambassador, I'm sure you will agree that your country does not have a legitimate
claim to the disputed Spratly islands. After all, we have several divisions of troops ready
to protect our interest at all times."

25) "As students belonging to the College of Nursing, either you support the fund-raising
concert or you simply watch the college humiliated. Money from the concert will be
used to fund community projects and other extra-curricular activities of the college."

66
 PART

SYMBOLIC LOGIC

I. INTRODUCTION

The first part of this manual dealt on the ‘syllogistic reasoning’ of Aristotle with the addition
of some developments by a 19th century logician, John Venn (1834-1923) specifically with
the Venn Diagrams. Also known as ‘traditional logic’, this type of logic became widely
taught and used for several centuries until it gradually transformed just as the emphasis
and focus of the study of logicians shifted to other aspects of argumentation.

In the middle ages, developments in the study of logic came with the work of Gottfried Wil-
helm Leibniz (1646-1716) who was convinced that all mathematical and scientific con-
cepts can be derived from logic. Another development emerged in the 19 th century:
George Boole (1815-1864) with his effort to systematically apply modern symbolism and
algebraic-type operations to logic. His works, which would include “The Mathematical
Analysis of Logic” and “An Investigation of the Law of Thought”, entitled him to be the
founder of a different type of logic, the ‘symbolic logic’.

In an attempt to further improve and maximize the use of logic, many logicians and mathe-
maticians continued to work on the topic. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832-1898), popu-
larly known as Lewis Carroll, attempted to present logic in an interesting manner through
his work “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”. Reality, according to Lewis Carroll, is an an-
alytical construct of reason and logic, as a tool, can help us dismantle the fallacious struc-
tures of our thought.

The study and application of logic went on to a lot of progress permeating in all human
activities that involves thinking: problem solving, debate, puzzles, planning and others.
This is also what we intend to pursue, to make use of such developments to better under-
stand the process of reasoning in arriving at logical conclusions.

67
II. STATEMENT

In Traditional Aristotelian Logic, the fundamental elements were terms. In Symbolic Logic,
however, the fundamental elements are whole statements (or propositions). A statement
is a declarative sentence that can be assigned a truth value: either as true or false, but not
both simultaneously. Its characteristic of being “judged” as either true or false makes
statements different from other kinds of sentences, such as those that are exclamatory
and interrogative.

Examples:
Logic is an easy subject.
Both Ana and Belle are beautiful.
Either religion is a boon or bane.
The Philippine president is a bachelor.
If you study your lessons well, then you will pass this course.

In contrast with the above examples, the following are illustrations of non-statement:
Do you love me?
Alas! – Perfect in the exam!
Wash my clothes!
Are you a gay or a lesbian?
How could imperfection come out of perfection?

If a statement has only one component (it says only one thing), like numbers 1 and 4 in
the first group of examples, then it is a Simple Statement. If a statement suggests a com-
bination of two or more components, like numbers 2, 3 and 5 in the first group of exam-
ples, then it is a Compound Statement.

Statements are represented by letters, and these letters are then combined by means of
the operators to form more complex symbolic representations. Any convenient upper-case
letter may be selected to represent each statement. Thus L might be selected to represent
the first example, and P the fourth. In the case of the combination of simple statements
forming a compound and more complex statement, connectives are used to join them. For
instance, the use of “and,” “or,” “if…then,” and “if and only if.”

68
 EXERCISE 01

State whether or not the following are statements. Also indicate the type (simple or com-
pound) if it is a statement.

1. This class is interesting.

2. Close the window.
3. Today is Tuesday.
4. It is drizzling but there are no clouds.
5. Do you want me?

6. Charles is gorgeous.
7. Dennis got married or Jose Rizal went to Japan.
8. I love you.
9. She is pretty.
10. 7 + 11 = 20

11. A square is a rectangle.

12. Shoot the ball!
13. A rectangle is round if and only if 2 + 2 is 5.
14. Patrick plays with his guitar.
15. If the martians will invade then the natives will fight.

16. Where can we find the Banaue rice terraces?

17. It is not true that today is Friday.
18. The ballpen is neither black nor blue.
19. SLU was founded by Belgian Missionaries.
20. Pass your papers now!

69
70
III. LOGICAL CONNECTIVES

A. Negation
The negation, signified by the tilde (~) can be used to form compound statements. Its
equivalent in English is the expression “not.”

Examples:
Philosophers are crazy.
Logic is not an easy subject.

If the first statement is symbolized using P, then its negation is symbolized as ~P,
meaning, “Philosophers are not crazy.” Similarly, since the negation “not” is found in
the second statement, it is symbolized as ~L if its affirmative form “Logic is an easy
subject” is symbolized using L.

Negations of a statement may be expressed using the words “no,” “not,” “never,” “it is
false that,” “it is not the case that,” and “it is not true that.” If the statement “Satan is
good” is symbolized by S, then the following examples below are all symbolized by ~S.

Examples:
Satan is not good.
It is not the case that Satan is good.
It is false that Satan is good.
It is not true that Satan is good.

The tilde symbol ( ~ ) is used to translate any negated statements. It is always placed
in front of the statement it negates, whereas all other operators are placed between
two statements. Unlike the other operators, the tilde cannot be used to connect two
statements. Although negation is not properly considered as a connective, it could be
considered as a special operator, as it could be used to put beside just any other oper-
ators, letters, and other connectives it negates. Thus, A ~X is not a proper expression.
But the tilde is the only operator that can immediately follow another connective. Thus,
it is proper to write A&~X (see discussion of other connectives for more examples and
further explanation).

B. Conjunction
When two or more simple statements are combined to form just one statement, it be-
comes a compound statement. For example, instead of saying “Ilocanos are thrifty”
and, in a separate statement say, “Cebuanos are industrious,” the two simple state-
ments can be combined in a single sentence:

Ilocanos are thrifty and Cebuanos are industrious.

71
 The use of the connective “and” allows a formation of a conjunctive compound state-
ment that asserts what used to be two separate ideas from two separate simple state-
ments in just one statement. Symbolically, if I stands for “Ilocanos are thrifty” and C
stands for “Cebuanos are industrious,” then, the conjunction sign (&) connects the two
letters to form a conjunctive symbol of the letters, (I&C) that would represent the state-
ment “Ilocanos are thrifty and Cebuanos are industrious.”
Conjunctive statements may be expressed using “and,” “but,” “yet,” “while,”
“moreover,” “however,” “nevertheless,” “furthermore,” “in addition to,” “aside from,” and
“although.” Care must be taken, however, when there is already a negation in a con-
junctive statement. For example:

Engineering students are good in Symbolic Logic while Nursing students are
good in Aristotelian Logic.
It is not the case that Engineering students are good in Symbolic Logic while
Nursing students are good in Aristotelian Logic.
Engineering students are not good in Symbolic Logic while Nursing students are
good in Aristotelian Logic.
Engineering students are good in Symbolic Logic while Nursing students are not
good in Aristotelian Logic.

Being an affirmative statement the first example is simply symbolized as (E&N). The
second is symbolized as ~ (E&N), in this case the tilde negates the entire expression
inside the parenthesis. The third is symbolized as (~E&N), the tilde only negates the
statement that “Engineering students are good in Symbolic Logic,” not the entire ex-
pression inside the parenthesis. The fourth is symbolized as (E&~N), the tilde only ne-
gates the statement “Nursing students are good in Aristotelian Logic,” not the entire
expression inside the parenthesis.

C. Disjunction
Statements that are combined to say that it is either the case of one of the statements
or the other, or, maybe even both, are disjunctive statements. The slash (/) connects
two different statements together to form a disjunctive relationship. For example,

I will either eat spaghetti or macaroni.

If S stands for “I will eat spaghetti,” and M stands for “I will eat macaroni,” then their
disjunction is symbolized as (S/M).

Disjunctive statements are expressed using “or,” “unless,” “either…or,” and “neither…
nor.” More examples are presented below:

Juan is neither charming nor intelligent.

Juan is either not charming or intelligent.
Juan is either charming or not intelligent.
Juan is intelligent unless he is charming.
Unless Juan is intelligent, he is charming.

72
 Given that the statement “Juan is intelligent” is symbolized by I, and the statement
“Juan is charming” is symbolized by C, the symbols of the given examples are as fol-
lows:

~(C/I) the tilde negates the entire expression inside the parenthesis,
that is, Juan is not charming and also not intelligent.
(~C/I) the tilde only negates the statement that “Juan is charming,” he
is, however, intelligent.
(C/~I) the tilde only negates the statement that “Juan is intelligent,” he
is, however, charming.
(C/I) No characteristic attributed to Juan is negated. He could be
charming, or he could be intelligent, or both.
(I/C) No characteristic attributed to Juan is negated. He could be intel-
ligent, or he could be charming, or both.

D. Conditional
Conditional statements are implicative statements: given that something is the case,
therefore something else will be the case. An arrow pointing to the right (→) is used to
translate “if…then…” and similar expressions that indicate a conditional statement. For
example,

If you will study your lessons well, then you will pass Logic.

The example generally implies that if it is the case of the condition, “You will study
your lessons well” then the consequent will likewise be the case, “You will pass Logic.”
If the condition (or the cause) is symbolized as S, and the consequence (effect) is
symbolized as P, then the symbol of the given example is (S→P).

The expressions “if…then…,” “in case that,” “provided that,” “given that,” and “on the
condition that” are usually translated in the same way as “if.” Although the word “if” of-
tentimes indicate the condition, careful must be taken, however, if the statement
makes use of “only if.” The function of “only if” is, in a sense, just the reverse of “if.”
For example,

You always eat too much food only if you are fat.

The statement above does not mean that “If you are fat, then you always eat too much
food.” If it meant this, then everyone who is fat would always eat too much food. Ra-
ther, the statement means, “If you always eat too much food, then you will get fat.” The
statement is then symbolized as (E→F). To avoid mistake in symbolizing “if” and
“only if,” the rules are: the statement that follows “if” is always the antecedent, the con-
dition, or the cause, and the statement that follows “only if” is always the consequent,
the implication, or the effect.

73
 Below are examples wherein negation is present in a conditional statement:

It is not the case that if education is merely a lucrative business, then the quality
of education will deteriorate.
If it is not the case that education is merely a lucrative business, then the quality
of education will deteriorate.
Education is merely a lucrative business provided that the quality of education
will not deteriorate.
Provided that education is merely a lucrative business, the quality of education
will not deteriorate.

Given that letter E symbolizes the statement “Education is merely a lucrative busi-
ness,” and letter Q symbolizes “The quality of education will deteriorate,” the symbols
of the following examples are as follows:

~(E→Q) the tilde negates the entire expression inside the parenthesis,
that is, the statement expressed inside the parenthesis is denied,
is not accepted, or is a lie.
(~E→Q) the tilde negates only the conditional statement, “Education is
merely a lucrative business,” that is, in this case, “Education is
not merely a lucrative business.”
(~Q→E) the tilde negates only the conditional statement, “The quality of
education will deteriorate. It means that “The quality of education
will not deteriorate.”
(E→~Q) the tilde negates only the consequent, the statement that “The
quality of education will deteriorate.” The symbols meant to say
that even if education is merely a lucrative business; the quality
of education will not necessarily deteriorate.

E. Bi-conditional
Bi-conditional statements are double or repeated conditionals, and hence, if condition-
al statements are symbolized by a single side arrow pointing to the right, bi-conditional
statements are symbolized using a double-sided arrow (↔). For instance,

I will love you if and only if you are rich.

The phrase “if and only if” implies that there is a two-way conditional relationship be-
tween the two simple statements contained in that compound statement. The example
above is symbolized as (L↔R). It means that it is both the case that “If I will love
you, then you are rich” (L→R), and “If you are rich, then I will love you” (R→L). Com-
bining the two statements, we have (L→R) & (R→L), which is just a longer way of
writing (L↔R).

74
Although (L↔R) is logically equivalent to (R↔L), when symbolizing statements,
the letter representing the first English statement is written to the left of the double-
sided arrow, and the letter representing the second English statement is written to the
right of the double-sided arrow. Thus, the statement “I will love you if and only if you
are rich” is symbolized as (L↔R), and not (R↔L).

Bi-conditionals are expressed using “if and only if,” “then and only then,” “implies that
and only implies that,” “provided that and only provided that,” and “is a necessary and
sufficient condition for.” Consider more examples below:

It is not the case that you are intellectual if and only if you are a philosophy ma-
jor.
It is not the case that you are not intellectual if and only if you are a philosophy
major.
You are not intellectual provided that and only provided that you are a philoso-
phy major.
You are intellectual provided that and only provided that you are not a philoso-
phy major.

If the simple statement “You are intellectual” is symbolized by I, and the simple state-
ment “You are a philosophy major” is symbolized by P, then the first example above is
symbolized by ~(I↔P), the second ~(~I↔P), the third (~I↔P), and the fourth
(I↔~P). The tilde in the first example negates the entire statement, the first tilde
in the second example also negates the entire statement, and however, the second
tilde in the same example only negates the conditional statement. The tilde in the third
example negates only the first statement in the compound statement, and the tilde in
the fourth example negates only the second statement in the compound statement.

75
76
 EXERCISE 02

Using the suggested letters as variables, identify the central relationship of the following state-
ments and then properly symbolize them.

1. It is not the case that he is a genius because he wears eye glass-

es. (G, E)
2. Kidney and Lungs filter cellular waste products in our body. (K, L)
3. Oscar is intelligent provided that he is a Magna Cum Laude. (I, M)
4. Roderick is not handsome. R
5. Our country’s economy will progress if and only if we are not lazy
and the politicians are not corrupt. (E, L, C)
6. Either both Dennis and Gulliver are the youngest in the depart-
ment or that Wilson is the oldest. (D, G, W)
7. I will bring my umbrella provided that and only provided that it will
rain tomorrow. (U, R)
8. Jonathan is updated with the new technological advances only if
he is a gadget freak. (U, G)
9. If Roderick is considered handsome, then people’s aesthetic judg-
ment is flawed. (R, P)
10. If we protect nature and segregate wastes properly, then mother
earth will be safe. (P, S, M)
11. The cause of bigger economic gap between the rich and the poor
is either the country’s government officials are not honest or the
capitalists are becoming greedier. (E, G, C)
12. Ana will join the outreach program unless she is not feeling well.
(J, F)
13. It is not the case that the Catholic senators and congressmen will
be ex-communicated from the church if and only if they will pass
the Reproductive Health Bill. (S, C, R)
14. Either the population is increasing or the agricultural production in
the country is declining. (P, A)

77
13. Both Torz and Wilson are sexy provided that and only provided
that Dennis and Glendon are not. (T, W, D, G)
16. It is not the case that neither Ana nor Gulliver is a sophist. (A, G)
17. Both Wilson and Ana wear eyeglasses but Yodi and Ronnie do
not. (W, A, Y, R)
18. If there is scarcity of food, then agricultural production is declin-
ing, and if the Philippine economy is decreasing, the Filipinos
have to work harder. (S, A, E, F)
19. Roderick is both not intellectual and wide-reader provided that
and only provided that he is handsome, but he is not handsome if
and only if he is both intellectual and wide-reader. (I, W, H)
20. It is not the case that if ex-seminarians are helpful, then they are
also trustworthy. (X, T)

78
V. COMPLEX COMPOUND STATEMENTS

The complex symbolic statements are generally referred to as statement calculus; mean-
ing the concern is no longer simply the mere relationships of one simple statement with
another, but a complex interrelationship of different structures of statements. Thus, the
statement would not just carry one connective but two or more, or, even a complex web of
relationships of sentential connectives.

Whenever more than two letters appear in a symbolic statement, parentheses, brace bars,
or brackets must be used to indicate the proper range of the operators or connectives.
The grouping symbols being used in symbolic logic are similar to those being used in al-
gebra. Parentheses ( ( ) ) are the innermost grouping symbol, brace bars ( [ ] ) are used
for further grouping of groups, and brackets ( { } ) are use for further grouping group of
groups. The symbol X&Y/Z, for example, is ambiguous. When parenthesis is introduced,
the statement implied in the symbol is either (X&Y) /Z or X&(Y/Z). These two statements
are not logically the same. Thus, with statements such as these, some clue must be found
in the English statement that indicates the correct placement of the parenthesis in the
symbolic statement. Such clues are usually given by commas, semicolons, “both,” “either,”
“then,” and by the use of a single predicate in conjunction with two or more subjects. The
following examples illustrate the correct placement of parentheses, brace bars, and brack-
ets:

If either Logic or Political Philosophy is my favourite subject, then Metaphysics is a diffi-

cult subject.

Logic is not my favourite subject, but Political philosophy is my favourite if and only if
Metaphysics is difficult.

It is not true that not both Logic and Political Philosophy are my favourite subjects pro-
vided that Metaphysics is a difficult subject.

Neither Epistemology nor Metaphysics is a difficult subject only if both Logic and Politi-
cal philosophy are not my favourite subjects.

Either both Metaphysics and Epistemology are difficult subjects or if Aesthetics is an

enjoyable subject, then neither Political Philosophy nor Logic is my favourite
subject.
It is not the case that provided Political Philosophy is not my favourite subject while
Logic is, Aesthetics is an enjoyable subject if Metaphysics and Epistemology
are not both difficult.

Given that the first letter of the philosophy subjects in the statements are used as varia-
bles, the first example should be symbolized as [(L/P) → M], the second as [~L & (P
↔M)], the third as ~[M → ~(L&P)], the fourth as [~(E/M) → (~L&~P)], the fifth as
{(M&E) / [A →~(P/L)]}, and the sixth as ~{(~P&L) → [~(M&E) →A]}.

79
80
 EXERCISE 03

Using Y, E, C, and P as variables, identify the central relationship of the following statements,
and then symbolize them into their proper statement calculus.

1. If the youth is the hope of our nation and the educators are he-
roes, then the capitalists are greedy.
2. Either the capitalists are greedy or most politicians are corrupt,
and the youth is not the hope of our nation.
3. It is not the case that either the politicians are corrupt if and only
if the youth is not the hope of our nation, or the capitalists are
greedy while educators are heroes.
4. If the youth is the hope of our nation, then the capitalists are not
greedy, provided that it is not true that either educators are he-
roes or that most politicians are corrupt.
5. Either most politicians are not corrupt and the youth is the hope
of our nation or most politicians are not corrupt while educators
are heroes.
6. If the youth is not the hope of our nation, then most politicians
are corrupt, provided that and only provided that either the capi-
talists are greedy or the youth is the hope of our nation.
7. It is both the case that most politicians are corrupt and educa-
tors are heroes if and only if the youth is the hope of our nation.
8. Most politicians are corrupt while educators are heroes if and
only if either the capitalists are greedy and the youth is the hope
of our nation or most politicians are not corrupt provided that
educators are not heroes.
9. It is not true that if most politicians are corrupt and educators are
heroes, then the youth is not the hope of our nation.
10. If educators are not heroes then the youth is not the hope of our
nation, and if the capitalists are greedy then most politicians are
corrupt.
11. If either most politicians are corrupt or the capitalists are greedy,
then the youth is not the hope of our nation.
12. If educators are not heroes, then either most politicians are cor-
rupt or the youth is not the hope of our nation.

81
13. Educators are not heroes provided that the youth is not the hope
of our nation, unless it is true that most politicians are corrupt
and the capitalists are greedy.
14. The conjunction of the statements, “The youth is the hope of our
nation” and “The capitalists are greedy” is not true provided that
and only provided that it is false that most politicians are corrupt
and educators are heroes.
15. Either it is not the case that the youth is the hope of our nation
and the educators are heroes or the capitalists are greedy while
most politicians are corrupt.

82
VI. TRUTH-TABLE ANALYSIS
The truth table is an arrangement of truth values that shows how the truth value of a com-
pound proposition depends on the truth values of its simpler components. The truth value
of the compound statement is completely determined by the truth values of its component
parts. If the truth values of the components are known, then the truth value of the com-
pound statement can be evaluated from the definitions of the logical operators or connec-
tives. Given the arrangement of truth values that shows in every possible case, truth table
analysis allows us to evaluate the truth value of the central relationship between the com-
ponent parts of any statement, be it simple, compound, or complex.

In constructing a truth table, the first factor that must be determined is the number of rows.
Because each row represents one possible arrangement of truth values, the total number
of rows is equal to the number of possible combinations of truth values for the simple
statement. Where R designates the number of rows and n the number of different simple
statements, the number of rows may be computed by the following formula:
R = 2--n

A. Negation:

The truth table for negation shows how any statement having the form of a negation
(~A) is determined by the truth value of the statement that is negated (A). For
example, “Athena is the goddess of wisdom.” The truth table below shows that ~A is
false when A is true and that ~A is true when A is false.

A ~A
T F
F T

B. Conjunction:

The truth table that follows shows how any statement having the form of a conjunction
is determined by the truth values of its conjuncts. For example, “Athena is the goddess
of wisdom and Xena is the warrior princess.” The truth table below shows that a con-
junction is true when its two conjuncts are true and is false in all other cases.

A X (A&X)

T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

83
C. Disjunction:

Now turning to the definition of the slash operator, the truth table of the statement
“Either Athena is the goddess of wisdom or Xena is the warrior princess” is as follows:

A X (A/X)

T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

The truth table shows that the disjunction is true when at least one of the disjuncts is
true. Once both the component parts are false, then their disjunctive relationship is
false.

D. Conditional:

Considering the arrow operator, the truth table for the statement, “If Athena is the god-
dess of wisdom, then Xena is the warrior princess” is as follows:

A X (A→X)
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T
The truth table shows that if the antecedent is true and the consequent happened, the
statement is obviously true. Likewise, if the antecedent is false and the consequent is
false, the statement is also true. However, the point of discussion is the case where
the antecedent is false and the consequent is true. For instance, in the statement “If
you eat too much, then you will get fat,” does that imply that the statement is false?
The statement does not obviously intend to say that the only condition where a person
will get fat is when he or she will eat too much. There could be other reasons as to
why a person will become fat; hence, the statement will still be true. The only instance,
therefore, where a conditional statement will be false is if the condition is true and its
corresponding consequent is false.

84
E. Bi-conditional:

In using the double-sided arrow operator, the truth-table for the statement, “Athena is
the goddess of wisdom if and only if Xena is the warrior princess” is presented below:

A X (A↔X)
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

The truth table shows that the bi-conditional is true only when its two component parts
have the same truth value and that otherwise it is false. The double-sided arrow indi-
cates that the component parts connected are equal or dependent to each other, that
is, the bi-conditional relationship of the components is true when they have the same
truth values, and false when they have opposite truth values.

SUMMARY:

For simple statements:

A ~A
T F
F T

For compound statements:

A X (A&X) (A/X) (A→X) (A↔X)

T T T T T T
T F F T F F
F T F T T F
F F F F T T

85
86
VII. EVALUATION OF STATEMENT CALCULUS and SYLLOGISTIC ANALYSIS

Translating English statements into their symbolic form is only the initial step in doing sym-
bolic logic. A more important concern is to be able to evaluate statements as being true or
not, and the corollary reasoning processes involving these statements as being valid or
not. An argument composed of statements having truth-functional forms such that it is im-
possible for all the premises to be true and the conclusion false is a truth-functionally VAL-
ID argument. On the other hand, if it is possible for all the premises to be true and the con-
clusion false is a truth functionally INVALID argument. Evaluation may be done through
the truth table analysis or through substitution of truth values.

A. Truth Table Method:

One way to be certain that a truth table contains every possible truth value combina-
tion of the variables is to systematize their arrangement in the initial columns. This
may be done by assigning a value of T to the first half of the rows and a value of F to
the last half of the rows in the first column. To fill out the second column, halve the
number of rows that contained T’s in the first column and alternate this number of T’s
and F’s to the end of the column. If this procedure is repeated correctly, the final col-
umn will be filled in with alternating occurrences of single T’s and F’s. In other words,
whatever number of rows one may arrive at, always divide it by 2 in filling each column
with truth values. And hence, for instance, when 3 variables or letters are involved in
the symbolized statement, the truth table shall compose of 8 rows. Now, 8÷2=4, mean-
ing, the first 4 rows will be T’s and the last 4 rows will be F’s in the first column. Next,
4÷2=2, meaning, the first two rows will be T’s, the second two rows will be F’s, the
third two rows will be T’s again, and the fourth two rows will be F’s. Lastly, 2÷2=1,
meaning, there shall be an alternating truth value of T’s and F’s in the last guide col-
umn.

A B STATEMENTS/PREMISES A B C A B C D
T T T T T T T T T
T F T T F T T T F
F T T F T T T F T
F F T F F T T F F
F T T T F T T
F T F T F T F
F F T T F F T
F F F T F F F
F T T T
F T T F
F T F T
F T F F
F F T T
F F T F
F F F T
F F F F
87
1. Truth Table Analysis for Statements

Truth-functional statements may be classified into three types. First, a truth-

functional statement having a form which makes it necessarily true is called tautology.
Second, a truth functional statement having a form which makes it necessarily false is
called contradiction. Third, a truth functional statement having a form which permits it
to be either true or false is called contingent.

3
2
1a 1b

B C [C / (~B→~C)]
3 1a 2 1b
T T T T F T F
Tautology T F F T F T T
F T T T T F F
F F F T T T T

4
3
2a 2b
1a 1b

A B C { [(A&B) / C] ↔ ~ [C / (B&A)] }
1a 2b 4 3 2b 1b
T T T T T T F F T T T
T T F T T F F F F T T
T F T F T T F F T T F
Contradiction T F F F F F F T F F F
F T T F T T F F T T F
F T F F F F F T F F F
F F T F T T F F T T F
F F F F F F F T F F F

A B ~ ( B / ~A )
T T F T T F

Contingent T F T F F F
F T F T T T
F F F F T T

88
 EXERCISE 04

Determine the truth-value of the following symbolized statements using the truth-table analy-
sis. You may use graphing paper so you can make use of its lines & boxes for the tabula-
tions.

1. [(~B&~E) ↔B]

2. {~ [(M↔A) & ~N]}

3. [(E&~I) / ~(F→E)]

4. [(O↔~N) → ~(N&O)]

5. [(A/X) & (~X↔~A)]

6. (X↔~X)

7. [S & (~L↔U)]

8. [~(P↔G) / (G&~P)]

9. {~ [~(A/N) & (A↔~A)]}

10. [(H→O) ↔ (P&E)]

89
90
2. Truth Table Analysis for Arguments

Using the truth-table analysis with statements can help only in determining the
truth value of a given statement, whereas with arguments it can help prove
or test the validity of a given argument. Also, the approaches will be different: with
statements, the truth value can be determined vertically based on the final column
representing the central relationship of a statement, with arguments, the validity
can be proven in a horizontal manner. In an argument, the statements with their
central relationships will still be considered but this time as bases for identifying
specific horizontal combinations of truth values: first, T T T  T (where the
premises are all true as well as the conclusion ) and second, T T T  F (where
the premises are all true while the conclusion is false). Other combinations like T F
T  T , F F T  T and many more are not to be included in the process of
identification.

A B C D ~ (A&B) ; (A/~C) ; (A→D) ; ( C↔A) ; ~ D

T T T T F T T F T T F
T T T F F T T F F T T
T T F T F T T T T F F
T T F F F T T T F F T
T F T T T F T F T T F * INVALID
T F T F T F T F F T T
T F F T T F T T T F F
T F F F T F T T F F T
F T T T T F F F T F F
F T T F T F F F T F T
F T F T T F T T T T F * INVALID
F T F F T F T T T T T √ VALID
F F T T T F F F T F F
F F T F T F F F T F T
F F F T T F T T T T F * INVALID
F F F F T F T T T T T √ VALID
0

As shown in the truth table, the 12th and 16th rows are in accordance with the first
combination (√ VALID), whereas the 5th, 11th, and 15th rows are with the second
combination (* INVALID). If in a table all you can find is the first combination then
the argument is VALID, however the presence of the INVALID combination, even
though it is just one among many VALID combinations, can render the argument
INVALID. The example above therefore is INVALID.

91
Examples:

a] If it is night time then there can be moonlight. If there is moonlight then there are lovers in
the park. Therefore, if it is night time then there lovers in the park. L, M, N

L M N (N→M) ; (M→L) ;  (N→L)

T T T T T T √ VALID
T T F T T T √ VALID
T F T F T T
T F F T T T √ VALID
F T T T F F
F T F T F T
F F T F T F
F F F T T T
0 √ VALID

b] If it is not the case both that Miss Langit is a teacher and the dean then it follows that he
is not an employee. He can be an employee if and only if he is either a teacher or dean
and that he is not a student. He is not a student and he is not the dean. Therefore, Miss
Langit is not a teacher. (D, E, S, T)

D E S T ~(T & D) → ~ E ; E ↔ [(T/D) & ~S] ; ~D & ~S ; T

T T T T F T T F T F T F F F F F F
T T T F T F F F T F T F F F F F T
T T F T F T T F T T T T T F F T F
T T F F T F F F T T T T T F F T T
T F T T F T T T F T T F F F F F F
T F T F T F T T F T T F F F F F T
T F F T F T T T F F T T T F F T F
T F F F T F T T F F T T T F F T T
F T T T T F F F T F T F F T F F F
F T T F T F F F T F F F F T F F T
F T F T T F F F T T T T T T T T F
F T F F T F F F T F F F T T T T T
F F T T T F T T F T T F F T F F F
F F T F T F T T F T F F F T F F T
F F F T T F T T F F T T T T T T F
F F F F T F T T F T F F T T T T T √ VALID
0

92
 EXERCISE 05

Symbolize the following arguments and then test their validity using the truth table analysis
method.

1. It is not the case that either social workers help the people in need or poor people need
to help themselves first. Poor people need to help themselves first if and only if social
workers do not help the people in need. Social workers help the people in need but poor
people do not help themselves first. Therefore, social workers help the people in need
provided that poor people help themselves first. S, P

S P
T T
T F
F T
F F

2. If both Gloria and Mike Arroyo are corrupt officials, then they should suffer in jail. It is not
true that neither Mike nor Gloria Arroyo is a corrupt official. Therefore, they should suffer
in jail. G, M, S

93
3. We can end the culture of negativism if and only if we help uplift our fellow Filipinos at
every opportunity. Either we help uplift our fellow Filipinos at every opportunity and end
the culture of negativism, or support the President’s advocacy against graft and corrup-
tion. We don’t support the President’s advocacy against graft and corruption. Therefore,
we can help uplift our fellow Filipinos at every opportunity provided that we support the
President’s advocacy against graft and corruption. C, H, S

4. If the RH Bill will not be approved, then the country’s population will keep on growing.
The country’s population will not grow if and only if the RH Bill will be approved. RH Bill
will be approved and the country’s population will not grow. Therefore, the country’s
population will keep on growing unless RH Bill will not be approved. R, P

94
B. Substitution Method:

The simplest way of determining the truth-values of statements is when the truth-
values of its component parts are known. In such cases, mere substitution of the truth-
values of the components and application of the truth table pertinent to the relationship
being discussed will help us evaluate the statement.

Consider the symbolized argument:

1st premise: [C / (~B → ~C) ],
2nd premise: {[(A&B)/C] ↔ [C/ (B&A)]
Conclusion: ~ (B /~A)

If it is known that both A and B are true, while C is false, then the solution will be as
follows:

[C / (~B → ~C) ]; {[( A & B ) / C ] ↔ [C / (B & A)]; :. ~ (B /~A)

1] F ~T ~F T T F F T T T ~T

2] F F T T F F T T F
3] F T T T T
4] T T ~T
5] F

The solution shows that the argument is invalid since the two premises are both true
while the conclusion is false. On the other hand, using the same symbolized argument
but given different truth-values such that this time, A is known to be true while both B
and C are false, the argument then turns out to be valid. Consider the solution below:

[C / (~B → ~C) ]; {[( A & B ) / C ] ↔ [C / (B & A)]; :. ~ (B /~A)

1] F ~F ~F T F F F F T F ~T
2] F T T F F F F F F
3] F T F F F
4] T T ~F
5] T

95
96
 EXERCISE 06

Determine the validity of the following symbolized arguments using the substitution method.

1] {[(G/O) →D] / [~D & (O↔G)]}; (~O&D) Let G,O be true; D be false

2] (A&A); (A/A); (A→A); (A↔A); A Let A be false

3] [L→(P&G)]; (G/L); (P&G) Let L be true; P,G be false

4] (~P&G); ~G; (G→P); (G↔~P);  (G/P) Let P be true; G be false

5] P; G; ~(P&G) Let P, G be true

6] (L&O); (V→E); [(E/L)↔(V/O)]; ~(L↔E); (V&~O) Let L,O be true; V,E be false

97
98
C. Proving the Invalidity or PARTIAL TRUTH VALUEs

Determining the validity or invalidity of argument forms with several letters or variables
by means of a complete truth table is obviously lengthy and tedious procedure. Fortu-
nately, however, there is a “short-cut” method in which it is possible to determine the
validity of an argument even without checking every possible combination of truth val-
ues for the variables. If the truth value assigned for each variable is made such that all
the premises are true and the conclusion is false, then the argument form has been
shown to be invalid.

To determine whether a given argument pattern is valid or not, consider the following
three steps:
 Assume that each premise of the pattern can be T, and the conclusion F. In other
words, assume that the pattern is not valid.
 Follow out the consequences of this assumption and try every possible way to
make each premise true and the conclusion false.
 If one fails in step 2, the pattern is valid, that the assumption of step 1 is false. If
one succeeds in step 2, the pattern is not valid, since one has succeeded in as-
signing truth values to the variables so that each premise comes out true and the
conclusion false.

For example:
[(~Q&~W) ↔ M] ; [Q → (~M/W)]; (W&~M)

The argument can be shown to be invalid by assigning values to the variables that the
premises are all true while the conclusion is false.

[(~Q & ~W) ↔ M] ; [Q → (~M / W)] ; (W&~M)

1] ~T ~F F T ~F F F ~F
2] F T F T T F F T
3] F F T T F
4] T T
Or….

[(~Q & ~W) ↔ M] ; [Q → (~M / W)] ; (W&~M)

1] ~F ~F T F ~T F F ~T
2] T T T F F F F F
3] T T F F F
4] Whenever T it is impossible T to assign values consistently so as to make
all the premises true and the conclusion false, an argument is val-
id, otherwise, it is invalid.

99
100
VIII. NATURAL DEDUCTION IN SYMBOLIC (PROPOSITIONAL) LOGIC

Natural deduction is a method for establishing the validity of propositional type arguments
that is both simpler and more enlightening than the method of truth tables. By means of
this method, the conclusion of an argument is actually derived from the premises through
a series of discrete steps. In this respect natural deduction resembles the method used in
geometry to derive theorems relating to lines and figures; but whereas each step in geo-
metrical proof depends on some mathematical principle, each step in a logical proof de-
pends on a rule of inference. Twenty-two rules of inference will be set forth in this section.
(Hurley, 1985)

A. IMPLICATIVE RULES

The first half concerning the Derivation Method is the implicative set of rules. The im-
plicative rules are so-called because new statements can only be inferred from exist-
ing statements, either given or previously derived. The following are the implicative
rules governing the Derivation Method:

1. CONJUNCTION (CONJ)

Conjunction is the method of combining two simple statements to form a com-

pound conjunctive statement. For example, the two simple statements,

Your hair grows faster in warm weather.

Your thumb is the same length as your nose.

can be combined to form just one compound statement,

Your hair grows faster in warm weather and your thumb is the same length
as your nose.

Note the use of the connective “and” to express that aside from the first idea con-
tained in the first simple statement, another idea is being expressed in that same
compound statement coming from the second simple statement.

Conj may be applied not just to simple but also to compound statements. For ex-
ample, the compound statements,

You yawn either because you are bored or you are stressed.
If you eat too many carrots, then your skin can turn orange.

can be combined to form just one compound statement,

You yawn either because you are bored or you are stressed, and if you eat
too many carrots, then your skin can turn orange.

101
Hence, a general description of what Conj does is that it involves combining two
statements to form just one compound conjunctive statement. In symbolic form,
the rule is:
p
q
p & q

where: p is the first statement, be it simple or compound.

q is the second statement, be it simple or compound.
p & q is the new statement formed by Conj.

Application of Conj:

For example one is being asked to prove that,

Both Precious and Grace will go to heaven while Ambrocio will go to hell.

Given that the following arguments are held valid:

Precious will go to heaven. (P)

Grace will go to heaven. (G)
Ambrocio will go to hell. (A)

In symbolic form:
1. P — Premise
2. G — Premise
3. A — Premise
Prove: [(P&G) & A] — Conclusion

Knowing that the Conj rule combines statements to form just one statement, there
cannot be an instant conclusion [(P&G) & A] since Conj as a rule can only combine
two statements at a time.

Hence, the logical process in arriving at the desired conclusion would be a step by
step relating of statements. Hence, the first logical step would be to prove that it is
(P&G) by taking P as the first conjunct, and G as the second. However, since the
desired conclusion is [(P&G) & A], the newly derived compound statement (P&G)
must still be conjoined with the given statement A to be able to state the conclu-
sion [(P&G) & A].

Thus, in summary form:

1. P 1st premise
2. G 2nd premise
3. A 3rd premise

Prove: [(P&G) & A]

4. (P&G) 1,2 Conj

5. [(P&G) & A] 4,3 Conj

102
where:
1,2 and 4,3 stands for the numbers of the statements used to derive the new
statement preceding them;
Conj identifies the rule used to derive the new statement;
Premise explains that the corresponding statement preceding it is a premise
or a given statement.

This entire series of statements with their corresponding explanation of derivation

comprises the Derivation Method which details how a corresponding conclusion is
derived by restating, substituting, and relating different validly held and derived ar-
guments. In this example, it was shown that the conclusion [(P&G) & A] is a valid
conclusion to make. However, it was necessary that an unstated but assumed
proposition, (P&G), first had to be derived and explicated. Succeeding examples
would give light to the “substituting” and “restating” processes contained in the
method.

103
104
 EXERCISE 07

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion through the CONJ method.
2. (L→K)
1. Prove: (X&B) 3. B
1. B
2. X

5. Prove: [W & (X→Y)]&{[(M↔N)&M]&(K/O)}

1. (M↔N)
2. (K/O)
3. W
2. Prove: [(H&O) &W] 4. M
1. H 5. (X→Y)
2. O
3. W

3. Prove: [M & (A&X)]

1. M
2. A
3. X

4. Prove: {[B & (L→K)] & (H/E)}

1. (H/E)

105
106
2. SIMPLIFICATION (SIMP)

Simplification can be described as the converse method of conjunction. It involves

a breaking down of a validly affirmed compound conjunctive statement into two
equally true simpler statements. Given a true conjunctive statement, then, would
yield any of its conjuncts as similarly true. For example, the conjunctive statement,

Glaciers flow into the Arctic Ocean and fish swim by a coral reef in the
Indian Ocean. (G&F)

can be broken down into either of its components:

Glaciers flow into the Arctic Ocean. (G)

or

Fish swim by a coral reef in the Indian Ocean. (F)

In symbolic form,

1. (G&F) or 2. (G&F)
G F

Similarly, this rule can be applied not just to simple conjunctive statements but
even to compound conjunctive statements. For example, the statement,

iPad is a touch-screen tablet computer while eLegs help people with par-
alyzed legs to walk on their own, moreover, if Antro Solo is a lightweight
eco-friendly electric car, then the AirPod car won’t pollute since it runs
on air power.

Since the central relationship of the original compound statement [(I&E) & (S→~P)]
is conjunction, Simp can still be applied to it to come up with two equally true state-
ments, (I&E) and (S→~P).

As true conjunctive statements will be true if and only if both of its conjuncts are
true, then the two components of the original conjunctive compound statement
would likewise be true if “simplified” from the original sentence. In general,

1. p & q or 1. p & q
p q

where:

p & q is the original conjunctive compound statement;

p is the original first conjunct, and becomes a stand-alone true statement;
q is the original second conjunct, and becomes a stand-alone true statement.

107
The most common reason why a compound statement will have to be reduced to
simpler forms is that there is a need to manipulate one or both of its component
parts as individual statements.

For example:

1. [(I&E) & (S→~P)]

2. [(X↔Y) & G]

Prove: [I & (X↔Y)]

There is no way a relation between I and (X↔Y) can be established if the group of
(I&E) cannot first be proven true apart from their relationship with (S→~P), and
then prove I by itself apart from its relationship with E. Likewise, no other relation-
ship with statement (X↔Y) can be established if it cannot be proven independent-
ly true apart from G. Therefore, deriving the missing propositions to establish the
conclusion, the solution is as follows:

1. [(I&E) & (S→~P)]

2. [ (X↔Y) & G]

Prove: [I & (X↔Y)]

3. (I&E) 1 Simp
4. I 3 Simp
5. (X↔Y) 2 Simp
6. [I & (X↔Y)] 4,5 Conj

108
 EXERCISE 08

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using SIMP.

1. [(X&Y) & (W&A)]

1. Prove: Y 2. [(Z→A) & X]
1. [(X&Y) & Z]

5. Prove: {[(M↔N) & ~P] & (~L & H)}

1. {[(H/I) & ~J] & [(K&~L) & (M↔N)]}
2. [(O&~P) & (I&H)]
2. Prove: (Y&Z)
1. [(X&Y) & Z]

3. Prove: [(L→O) & (V/E)]

1. [(M&A) & (V/E)]
2. [(L→O) & X]

4. Prove: [(Z→A) & W]

109
110
3. MODUS PONENS (MP)

Modus Ponens states that given a validly affirmed conditional statement, and
knowing that the condition is true, therefore the consequent is likewise affirmed.
There can be no other implication of a true condition given that the conditional rela-
tionship where it comes from is likewise true. For example, knowing that,

If you always eat too much, then you will get fat.
You always eat too much.

The implied conclusion,

Therefore, you will get fat.

can be made. Hence, in a symbolic form, MP can be expressed in general as:

1. p → q
2. p
q

where:
p → q is the given validly affirmed conditional statement;
p is the validly affirmed condition of the statement;
q is the implied true consequent, given that the condition is true and condi-
tional statement is likewise true.

For the application of MP, consider this example:

1.{[(X&Y)→Z] & Y}
2. {X & [Z→(W/M)]}

Prove: (W/M)
In order to prove the conclusion, the group of [Z→(W/M)] must first be separated
from the other conjunct, X, in the second premise. Since Z is the condition for the
proof of (W/M), the former must first be proven through the combination of (X&Y)
since Z is the consequent of the first conjunct in the first premise. The complete
proof of validity of the conclusion is as follows:

1. { [(X&Y)→Z] & Y}
2. {X & [Z→ (W/M)]}
Prove: (W/M)

3. [Z→ (W/M)] 2 Simp

4. [(X&Y) →Z] 1 Simp
5. X 2 Simp
6. Y 1 simp
7. (X&Y) 5,6 Conj
8. Z 4,7 MP
9. (W/M) 3, 8 MP

111
112
 EXERCISE 09

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using MP.

1. [(L→E) & O]
1] Prove: P 2. {(V&X) & [(O&V) →L]}
1. (X&M)
2. (M→P)

5] Prove: ~P
1. [(A→B) & ~(F/G)]
2] Prove: P 2. {B → [~(F/G) → (Q→~P)]}
1. [(W&X) & M]
3. [(A&X) & Q]
2. [(X&M) →P]

3] Prove: (~M&P)
1. [(X&Y) → ~M]
2. [(~P&~M) → P]
3. [(X&M) & (Y&~P)]

4] Prove: E

113
114
4. MODUS TOLLENS (MT)

Modus Tollens states that given a validly affirmed conditional statement, and
knowing that the truth of the consequent is denied, therefore the truth of the condi-
tion is likewise denied. There can be no other implication of a denied consequent
on the truthfulness of the condition given that the conditional relationship where it
comes from is true. For example, knowing that

If you wake up early, then you will be able to attend to your 7:30 class.
You were not able to attend to your 7:30 class.

The conclusion,

Therefore, you did not wake up early.

can be made owing to the denial of the consequent.

This rule applies even if the condition or consequent, or even both, may be negat-
ed. Consider another example:

If you pass your project on time, then you will get a high score.
You did not get a high score.
Therefore, you did not pass your project on time.

Given that the consequent of the first statement is denied in the assertion of the
second statement, then the condition of the first statement must likewise be de-
nied. In symbolic form, MT can be expressed in general as:

1. p → q
2. ~q
~p
where:
p → q is the given validly affirmed conditional statement;
~q is the denial of the consequent of the statement;
~p is the implied denial of the condition, given that the consequent is similarly
denied and conditional statement is validly affirmed.

Also, consider the following variations of the rule:

p → ~q ~p → q ~p → ~q
q ~q q
~p p p

115
For the application of MT, consider the example:

1. [~(A→X) → W)]
2. (O→~W) & (~X&O)

Prove: (~A & O)

3. (O→~W) 2 Simp
4. (~X&O) 2 Simp
5. ~X 4 Simp
6. O 4 Simp
7. ~W 3, 6 MP
8. (A→X) 1, 7, MT
9. ~A 8, 5 MT
10. (~A&O) 9,6 Conj

116
 EXERCISE 10

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using MT.

1] Prove: : ~M 4] Prove: ~E
1. [M → ~(A&X)] 1. [(H→~A) & (T&A)]
2. X 2. [ E → ~ (~H&T)]
3. A

2] Prove: : M 5] Prove: (H&~W)

1. (~A & ~M) 1. [~X → (Z→H)]
2. (~M →A) 2. [X → ~(A&B)]
3.[(B&Z) & (A&F)]
4. (W→~F)

3] Prove: T
1. (P→~M)
2. [(~T→M) & P]

117
118
5. DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM (DS)

Given any established disjunction and given a denial of one of its disjuncts, then
the other disjuncts can be affirmed. There can be no other possible implication of a
validly affirmed disjuncts having the case of one of its disjuncts denied, except that
it must be the case of the other disjunct. For example, given that

Roderick is either ugly or handsome.

Roderick is not handsome.

The only conclusion that can be made regarding the ideas being asserted in these
two statements is that

Therefore, Roderick is ugly.

since if this conclusion cannot be affirmed still, then the disjunctive compound
statement, having both of its disjuncts denied, will likewise be rendered false.

This rule can be applied regardless of the complexity of the disjunctive compound
statement and regardless of whether one of the disjuncts, or even both, are negat-
ed. Consider another example:

Either Mount Everest is not the highest point on Earth or the Dead Sea
in Israel is not the lowest point on Earth.
The Dead Sea in Israel is the lowest point on Earth.
Therefore, Mount Everest is not the highest point on Earth.

Since the case of the first disjunct is denied, then the only way the disjunctive rela-
tionship will be true – and it is given as true – is if the case of the second disjunt is
affirmed. The case of the second disjunct, although it is a negative case, states
that, “The Dead Sea in Israel is the lowest point on Earth.” Therefore, the rightful
conclusion, affirming the case of the second disjunct is, “Mount Everest is not the
highest point on Earth.”

In symbolic form, Disjunctive Syllogism can thus be expressed in the general

forms:

1. p / q 1. p / q
2. ~p or 2. ~q
q where: p
p / q is the known disjunctive statement;
~p or ~q is the denial of one of the disjuncts;
p or q is the conclusion that follows given the disjunction p/q and given
that it is ~p or ~q respectively.

119
Consider below an application of DS.

1. [(Z/M) & ~Z]

2. [(W→K) / ~(M&~Z)]

Prove: [(W→K) & (Z/M)]

3. (Z/M) 1 Simp
4. ~Z 1 Simp
5. M 3,4 DS
6. (M&~Z) 5,4 Conj
7. (W→K) 2,6 DS
8. [(W→K) & (Z/M)] 7,3 Conj

120
 EXERCISE 11

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using DS.

1. {[~W / (L&D)] & (O&~R)}

1] Prove: (Y→Z) 2. {[(G/R) / ~O] & ~(L&D)}
1. [(H→A) →B]
2. [(Y→Z) / (H→A)]
3. (~B&~C)

5] Prove: (~S & A)

1. [~S / ~(B&Y)]
2. [(A&B) & Y]
2] Prove: X
1. [W / (X/B)]
2. (~W & ~B)

3] Prove: (M/O)
1. [(E&G) → (M/O)]
2. [(E/G) & (~E&~G)]

4] Prove: (G&~W)

121
122
6. DISJUNCTION INTRODUCTION (DI)

Any statement can be made to relate to another previously affirmed statement by

way of disjunction. The rationale behind this rule is that any statement – that is, a
statement carrying any degree of complexity in terms of sentential relationships
and carrying any truth-value – introduced by way of disjunction to any established
true statement will still yield affirmable statement. For example, knowing that the
truthfulness of the statement,

An average person could walk across Monaco in 56 minutes.

Combining any statement with it by way of disjunction will still yield a true new
statement,

An average person could walk across Monaco in 56 minutes or Vatican City

is the smallest country in the world.

This is so because a true statement disjuncted with another true statement yields a
true statement. Similarly, a true statement disjuncted with a false statement will still
yield a true statement. The “added” component may be a simple or compound
statement; it may be negated or not. DI is also known as “Addition” (Add), and in
symbolic statements, it can thus be expressed in the general form:

1. p
p/q

where:
p is any validly affirmed statement;
q is any logical statement added;
p / q is the newly formed, validly affirmed disjunctive compound statement.

One may perhaps wonder what the significance of this rule is. A parallel of the im-
portance of this rule is the real-life exercise options. Perhaps one is bent on doing
a particular choice which one has already deemed true, then all of a sudden anoth-
er choice presented itself probable, although nothing is known whether it is a cor-
rect choice to make or not. From a certainty of a “This one!” a moment of reconsid-
eration perhaps ensued and the exclamation became, “This one or that one?”
What sentential logic guarantees is that if at least one of the choices is a correct
choice to make – and in this case, the first one is a guaranteed correct choice –
then “This one or that one” remains a true option to make.

123
For the purposes of Derivation Method, there might be instances when a certain
disjunction that has not yet been proven true is needed to eventually arrive at the
desired conclusion. One possible and often less cumbersome means of deriving
such disjunctive compound statement would be the use of DI in this example:

1. {[(~A/B) → C] & ~D}

2. (A →D)
Prove: [C / (Z↔~X)]

Clearly, there is no other way to prove [C / (Z↔~X)] except by separating

[(~A/B) → C] from ~D first, and then to prove ~A by denying D in the second prem-
ise through the simplification of ~D in the first premise. Afterwards, add B to ~A
using DI. Still, the conclusion cannot be made until the proof of C and then the ad-
dition of (Z↔~X) afterwards. Hence, the complete proof of validity of the conclu-
sion is:

1. {[(~A/B) → C] & ~D}

2. (A →D)

Prove: [C / (Z↔~X)]

3. [(~A/B) → C] 1 Simp
4. ~D 1 Simp
5. ~A 2, 4 MT
6. ( ~A/B) 5 DI
7. C 3,6 MP
8. [C / (Z↔~X)] 7 DI

124
 EXERCISE 12

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using DI.

1. [(X/W) & (Z&~W)]

1] Prove: O 2. [(~A→B) ↔S]
1. [(B/X) → (X→O)]
2. (B&X)

5] Prove: (C/A)
1. {[(Y/Z) &~W] → (A/B)}
2. [(G&W) & (M&N)]
2] Prove: M 3. [(A/B) → (C/A)]
1. (X→O) 4. [(G/H) → ~W]
2. (X & ~O)
5. {~Y → ~[(M&N) / D]}

3] Prove: (M & N)
1. (X &~X)

4] Prove: {[(X/Y)/(Z&~A)]/[(~A→B) ↔S]}

125
126
7. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM (HS)

Given any two conditional statements and given that the antecedent of one of the
consequent of the other are the same, a new conditional statement can be inferred
such that the new antecedent will be the antecedent of the conditional whose con-
sequent is the same with the antecedent of the other, and the new consequent will
be the consequent of the conditional whose antecedent is the same with the con-
sequent of the other. In simpler terms, given a conditional p→q and another condi-
tional q→r, there can be another conditional implied by the first two such that p→r.
In symbolic language, the general form for HS is:

1. p → q
2. q → r
p → r
where:
p→q is the first validly affirmed conditional statement;
q→r is the second validly affirmed conditional statement;
p→r is the implied conditional statement, having the condition of the first con-
ditional statement, whose consequent is the same with the condition of the
other conditional statement, and having the second conditional statement,
whose conditional is the same with the consequent of the first conditional
statement.

For example, knowing that the following conditional statements are true,

If you are truly an educator, then you must be a researcher.

If you must be a researcher, then you are a lover of wisdom.

Another conditional statement can be derived such that,

If you are truly an educator, then you are a lover of wisdom.

In symbolic form, the example is designated as

1. E → R
2. R → L
E → L

Note that what happened in the process is the elimination of the exact component simi-
larly carried by both statements, in this case R, and the new conditional statement
would have the condition and the consequent that remains in the process.

127
An application of HS is seen in the example below:

1. [ ~A/(R→U)]
2. [A→ (U→W)]
3. [A & (H→R)]

Prove: (H→W)

4. A 3 Simp
5. (R→U) 1,4 DS
6. (U→W) 2,4 MP
7. (R→W) 5,6 HS
8. (H→R) 3 Simp
9. (H→W) 8,7 HS

128
 EXERCISE 13

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using HS.

1. [~(M→B) / (S&T)]
1] Prove: (Q/R) 2. [S → (R/U)]
1. [(C→S) & (S→D)] 3. [(O→B) & (M→O)]
2. [(C→D) → (Q/R)]

5] Prove: (T→W)
1. [(T→S) & (~A&A)]
2] Prove: (~Q/R) 2. [C → (S→W)]
1. [(M→D) & X]
2. [Q → ~(M→N)]
3. [X → (D→N)]

3] Prove: [(X/Y) / P]
1. [~(X/Y) → (H&S)]
2. {[(H&S) → P] & (A&~P)}

4] Prove: [(R/U) / M]

129
130
8. ABSORPTION (Abs)

Having an affirmed conditional statement, a new conditional statement can be in-

ferred such that the antecedent would be the antecedent of the original statement
and the consequent is a conjunction of the antecedent and the consequent of the
original conditional statement. To understand what this rule is trying to achieve,
one has to first assume that the condition is true. If the condition is true, then its
consequent is implied. And if the condition is true then it is independently true,
meaning it is possible to form a conjunction of it and its implied consequent. How-
ever, this conjunction of the condition and its consequent can only be true if the
assumed condition is indeed true. Hence, in general form,

1. p → q
p → (p&q)

where:
p→q is the original conditional statement
p→(p&q) is the equivalent restatement of the original conditional statement
using Abs.

Take note that this implication could be derived since the consequent will only be
true if the condition p, is true, anyway. That is, if p is true, then a conjunction with
its implied consequent can be derived. For example,

If geothermal energy uses the heat that rises from Earth’s core, then biomass
is an energy source found in organic trash.

another conditional statement can be derived to say

If geothermal energy uses the heat that rises from Earth’s core, then geother-
mal energy uses the heat that rises from Earth’s core and biomass is an en-
ergy source found in organic trash.

The example below shows the application of Abs in derivation.

1. [ ~(V→W) → J]
2. [ (~Q→~J) & ~Q]

Prove: [V → (V&W)]

3. (~Q→~J) 2 Simp
4. ~Q 2 Simp
5. ~J 3,4 MP
6. (V→W) 1,5 MT
7. [V → (V&W)] 6 Abs

131
132
 EXERCISE 14

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using ABS.

1. [~M & (X→Y)]

1] Prove: ~A 2. [(X&Y) → Z]
1. {[~A → (~A&S)] → (Y&~A)} 3. [~(X→Z) / M]
2. [(D→S) & (~A→D)]

5] Prove: ~(O&S)
1. [(M→N) & (R→M)]
2] Prove: [W → (W&S)] 2. [(O&S) → ~(X/Y)]
1. [W → (A&R)] 3. ~[R → (R&P)] / (X/Y)
2. [(A&R) → S] 4. (N→P)

3] Prove: ~A
1. [(R→S) & (W→R)]
2. [A → ~(X/Y)]
3. {[W → (W&S)] → (X/Y)}

4] Prove: [(A/D) & M]

133
134
9. CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA (CD)

Having affirmed a conjunction of two conditional statements and a disjunction of

their antecedents, a disjunction of their respective consequents logically follows.
For example, given that the following statements are true,

If you study your lessons well, then you will pass all your subjects, and if you
get high grades, then you will graduate with honours.
Either you study your lessons well or you get high grades

a conclusion can be made such that,

Either you will pass all your subjects or you will graduate with honors.

Looking at these statements in symbols,

1. [(S→P) & (H→G)]
2. (S/H)
(P/G)

An easier understanding of the dynamics of the rule is to think of CD as a double

MP. The first statement is saying that the first and second conditional statements
will happen. The second statement, however, asserts that either the condition of
the first or the second conditional statement actually happens. Knowing these
facts, it then logically follows that either the consequent of the first conditional
statement or the consequent of the second conditional statement also happens.

In general form then, CD can be symbolically seen as:

1. (p → q) & (q → r)
2. (p / r)
(q / s)
where:
[(p→q) & (r→s)] is the conjunction of the two conditional statements;
(p / r) states the disjunction of the two conditions;
(q / s) is the new derived statement from the facts presented by the first two
statements.

135
Consider the application of CD in the example below:

1. [(O→M) & (H→K)]

2. {(T→W) & [(G→H) & (O&H)]}

Prove: [(M/W) & (K/H)]

3. (O→M) 1 Simp
4. (T→W) 2 Simp
5. [(O→M) & (T→W)] 3,4 Conj
6. [(G→H) & (O&H)] 2 Simp
7. (O&H) 6 Simp
8. O 7 Simp
9. (O / T) 8 DI
10. (M/W) 5,9 CD
11. (H→K) 1 Simp
12. (G→H) 6 Simp
13. [(H→K) & (G→H)] 11,12 Conj
14. H 7 Simp
15. (H/G) 14 DI
16. (K/H) 13,15 CD
17. [(M/W) & (K/H)] 10,16 Conj

136
 EXERCISE 15

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using CD.

1. [~Z → (M/X)]
1] Prove: (P→T) 2. [(~Z/G) & (X&~G)]
1. [(K/S) → (S→T)] 3. [(M→Z) & (X→G)]
2. [(~H→K) & (P→S)]
3. (~H/P)

5] Prove: (M/O)
1. [(Y→S) & (S/Y)]
2] Prove: (X/D) 2. [(O→M) & (S→O)]
1. [(A→X) & (A/C)] & (C→D)

3] Prove: (E/E)
1. [(H→O) & (P→E)]
2. [(L→E) & (L/P)]

4] Prove: (Z/G)

137
138
10. DESTRUCTIVE DILEMMA (DD)

Having affirmed a conjunction of two conditional statements and a disjunction of

the denial of their consequents, a disjunction of the denial of their respective ante-
cedents logically follows.

For example, given that the following statements are true,

If you are conscious of your health, then you will stay fit, and if you exercise
every day, you will become stronger.
Either you are not fit or you are not strong.

A conclusion can be made such that,

Either you are not conscious of your health or you don’t exercise every day.

The first statement is saying that both the first and the second conditional state-
ments will happen. However, the second statement is asserting that either the con-
sequent of the first conditional statement or the consequent of the second condi-
tional statement does not happen. Based on the denial of the consequents of the
two conditional statements in the first statement, it then logically follows that either
the condition of the first conditional statement or the condition of the second condi-
tional statement does not also happen.

In general form, then, DD can be symbolically seen as

1. (p → q) & (q → r)
2. (~q/~s)
(~p/~r)
An example below shows the application of DD

1. [(S→~Z) & (~Y→F)]

2. [(Z/~F) & (~H→S)]

Prove: [(~S/Y) & (H/Y)]

3. (Z/~F) 2 Simp
4. (~S/Y) 1,3 DD
5. (S→~Z) 1 Simp
6. (~H→S) 2 Simp
7. (~H→~Z) 6,5 HS
8. (~Y→F) 1 Simp
9. [(~H→~Z) & (~Y→F)] 7,8 Conj
10. (H/Y) 9,3 DD
11. [(~S/Y) & (H/Y)] 4,10 Conj

139
140
 EXERCISE 16

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using DD.

1. [A → (A&B)] →S
1] Prove: (~A/Y) 2. [(A→B) & (~A/~D)]
1. [(G→~X) → (X/~Z)] 3. [~S / (A→D)]
2. [(A→~X) & (~Y→Z)] 4. (G→A)
3. (G→A)

5] Prove: (~B/G)
1. [(C/F) → (~G→H)]
2] Prove: (A&B) 2. [X → (X&Z)] → (A→C)
1. (~O→Z) 3. [(A/B) & (B→F)]
2. [(X→O) & (~O/~Z)] 4. [(X→Z) & (~F/~H)]
3. [(~X/O) → (A&B)]

3] Prove: ~(A&B)
1. [(~H/~W) & (X→H)]
2. [(A&B) → ~(H→S)]
3. [~(~X/T) / (H→S)]
4. (~T→W)

4] Prove: (~G/~A)

141
142
11. LAW OF ABSURDITY (LA)

This rule takes its force from a systematic and strongly conceptualistic understand-
ing of the real world. If something does not fit the system of knowledge that one
has, then that something does not make sense and cannot therefore be real. The
Law of Absurdity asserts exactly this: any statement that implies an absurdity must
itself be false. Take this statement, for example:

If you cheat during the exams, then you will pass and not pass the subject.

The phrase, “you will pass and not pass the subject” is a clear absurdity since it
cannot be possible that one person is simultaneously both the case and not the
case of something. Therefore, the event that leads to such an absurdity must itself
be false.

Therefore, do not cheat during the exams.

In symbolic statement, the general form for the Law of Absurdity is thus,

1. p → (q&~q)
p

Con- sider the application of LA in the example below:

1. [X → (Y&~Y)]
2. [~X → (X→Y)]

Prove: [X → (X&Y)]

3. ~X 1 LA
4. (X→Y) 2,3 MP
5. [X → (X&Y)] 4 Abs

143
144
 EXERCISE 17

Construct a logical proof of validity of the conclusion using any of the eleven rules of implica-
tive derivation method.

1. (~W→X)
1] Prove: [M → (M&A)] 2. (Y→~Z)
1. [M → (A&~A)] 3. [X→ (S&~S)]
2. [~M → (M→A)]

5] Prove: (~Y/~H)
1. [(C/F) → (~G→H)]
2] Prove: (Q/~X) 2. [X → (X&Z)] → (A→C)
1. [L → (~A&A)] 3. [(A/B) & (B→F)]
2. [(~Q→L) & (X→~B)] 4. [(X→Z) & (~F/~H)]

3] Prove: H
1. [~B → (~X&X)]
2. [B → (A/W)]
3. [(A→Z) & (W→~G)]
4. [(B→~Z) & (~H→G)]

4] Prove: (W/~Y)

145
146
A. REPLACEMENT RULES

The second set of rules governing the Derivation Method covers what is generally
known as the replacement rules. The replacement rules are so-called because they
operate through the substitution of equivalent statements where possible and where
needed. Replacement rules can be applied on either given or previously derived state-
ments; substituting entire statements or just their components whenever deemed nec-
essary to establish the desired conclusion.

A claim or part of a claim may be replaced by any claim or part of a claim to which it is
equivalent by one of the following equivalent rules. The rules allow us to go two ways
instead of one, from either claim to its equivalent or to replace part of a claim with an
equivalent part, rather than having to deal with entire lines of a deduction all at once.
(Hurley,1985)

The following are the replacement rules governing the Derivation Method.

1. DOUBLE NEGATION (DN)

Any statement doubly negated is equivalent to saying the statement itself. For ex-
ample, the statement,

It is false that the witness did not tell the truth.

Could be taken to mean that

The witness told the truth.

To deny the denial about something else is the same way as saying that the denial
of that something is not true or unacceptable.

In symbolic form then, DN states that,

~ ~p ↔ p

where:
~ ~p is the doubly negated statement;
p is the equivalent statement of ~ ~p

Care should be taken, however, not to drop negation sign simply because they are
adjacent. For example, to say that

~ (~X&Y) ↔ (X&Y)

IS NOT TRUE. In the example, the second negation sign is negating only X. The
first negation sign on the other hand, is not actually negating the second negation
sign but the conjunctive relationship of ~X and Y. Hence, this is not a negation of a

147
negation or a negated negation. In DN, what must be negated should be another
negation before a statement, and not something else (in the example, the conjunc-
tive relationship of ~X and Y, so that the two negation signs can be dropped.
Hence, rather than the example provided, it is proper to say that (~~X&Y) ↔
(X&Y). Consider the application of DN below:

1. [(Q→~~M) & ~E]

2. (~Q→~~E)

Prove: M

3. (Q→~~M) 1 Simp
4. ~E 1 Simp
5. (~Q→E) 2 DN
6. Q 5, 4 MT
7. ~~M 3,6 MP
8. M 7 DN

148
 EXERCISE 18

Construct a logical proof of validity using DN.

1. [(M→~N) & ~O]

1.] Prove: ~~X 2. (D/N)
1. [(~X→M) & (~M&Y)] 3. [(~M→H) & (H→O)]

4.] Prove: (~~~Z & ~A)

1. [(A→B) & (C→D)]
2.] Prove: N 2. [(A/C) & (Z→A)]
1. [(M/O) & (O→Y)] 3. [(B/D) → ~A]
2. [(M→~~N) &~Y]

3.] Prove: (D&~~D)

149
150
2. TAUTOLOGY (Taut)

Any statement related by way of disjunction or conjunction to itself is equivalent to

stating the statement itself simply. For example, the statement,

I am a survivor or I am a survivor.
Ana is healthy and Ana is healthy.

clearly means that

I am a survivor.
Ana is healthy.

For the first example, a choice between one thing and itself would obviously yield
the same thing, and likewise, for the second example, combining the same de-
scription to one person or thing is the same as saying the same thing. Hence, Taut
is understood as “saying the same thing itself.”

In general form, then, Tautology can be stated as

p ↔ (p/p)
q ↔ (q&q)

where:
(p/p) is the tautologous expression of the first example, and hence can be
restated simply as p;
(q&q) is the tautologous expression of the second example, and hence can
be restated simply as q.

An application of Taut is seen below:

1. (R→~~V)
2. [V→(X/X)]
3. (R&R)

Prove: X

4. R 3 Taut
5. ~~V 1,4 MP
6. V 5 DN
7. (X/X) 2,6 MP
8. X 7 Taut

151
152
 EXERCISE 19

Construct a logical proof of validity using TAUT.

2. [(C/B) → (M&M)]
1.] Prove: ~H 3. (C/C)
1. [(H→S) & ~B]
2. (H→B)

4.] Prove: (S→Y)

1. [(Q&Q) → (~~S→Y)]
2. [(Q/~S) &S]
2.] Prove: S
1. [(A&A) →B]
2. {[~B / (S&S)] & A}

3.] Prove (W&M)

1. [(C→W) & (B→W)]
153
154
3. COMMUTATION (Comm)

The order of components of a statement related by way of conjunction in that sin-

gle statement, or by disjunction, or by bi-conditional, does not essentially affect the
meaning of the statement. One who is familiar with basic mathematical properties
will perhaps be reminded of the Commutative Law for addition or multiplication in
mathematics, where the order of the addends or factors do not affect the sum or
product of the equation. This same law is at work here, but limited only to conjunc-
tive, disjunctive, or bi-conditional relationships. For example, the statement

Uzbekistan and Liechtensten are doubly landlocked countries in the world.

which can be rightly as “Uzbekistan is a doubly landlocked country in the world and
Liechtensten is a doubly landlocked country in the world” can be restated as

Liechtensten and Uzbekistan are doubly landlocked countries in the world.

without causing any change in meaning and truth-value of the statement. This re-
statement can be easily explained by the fact that the order of the conjuncts does
not affect the meaning of the statement. In similar way, the order of the disjuncts
and the order of the conditions of a bi-conditional statement do not affect the
meaning of the statement. For example, the disjunction

Either San Marino is the world’s oldest Republic or Damascus in Syria is one
of the oldest cities in the world.

can be restated, without change of meaning as

Either Damascus in Syria is one of the oldest cities in the world or San Ma-
rino is the world’s oldest Republic.

And the bi-conditional

The national animal of Botswana is zebra if and only if the national animal of
Cyprus is the mouflon.

can also be restated, without change of meaning as,

The national animal of Cyprus is the mouflon if and only if the national animal
of Botswana is zebra.

In general form then, Commutation can be stated as

(p&q) ↔ (q&p)
(p / q) ↔ (q / p)
(p↔q) ↔ (q↔p)

155
As an application of Commutation, consider the example below:

1. [(R&A) → ~(F↔H)]
2. [~(T/Z) → (H↔F)]
3. [(A&R) & (M/M)]

Prove: [(Z/T) & M]

4. (A&R) 3 Simp
5. (R&A) 4 Comm
6. ~(F↔H) 1,5 MP
7. ~(H↔F) 6 Comm
8. (T/Z) 2,7 MT
9. (Z/T) 8 Comm
10. (M/M) 3 Simp
11. M 10 Taut
12. [(Z/T) & M] 9,11 Conj

156
 EXERCISE 20

Construct a logical proof of validity using COMM.

2. [~(Z/D) / (Y&Y)]
1.] Prove: (Y↔Z) 3. [~~M → (D/Z)]
1. (S&Z)
2. [~(B/A) → ~(Z&S)]
3. [(A/B) → (Z↔Y)]

4.] Prove: {(C&D) & [(Y/Z) & (B↔C)]}

1. [(C↔B) & (Z/Y)]
2. [(D/D) & (C&C)]
2.] Prove: (E/X)
1. (X/X)
2. [X→(X/E)]

3.] Prove: X
1. [(Y→~~X) & M]
157
158
4. ASSOCIATION (Assoc)

The grouping of components of a statement consistently related by way of disjunc-

tion, or by way of conjunction, in just one statement may vary without affecting the
basic assertion of the statement. For example, the statement

Unless political science students are bored, either nursing students are con-
scientious or masscom students are lazy.

can be restated, without any change in what is being asserted as:

Masscom students are lazy unless either political science students are bored
or nursing students are conscientious.

In the same way, the statement

Gary is a dancer while both Jed and Martin are balladeers.

can also be restated, without any change in what is being basically asserted as,

Gary is a dancer while Jed is a balladeer, and Martin is also a balladeer.

In general form, Association can be stated as

[p / (q / r)] ↔ [(p / q) / r]
[p & (q&r)] ↔ [(p&q) &r]

As an application of Association, consider the example below:

1. {[(T&Q) & G] → (W/D)}

2. [(G&Q) & T]

Prove: [W / (D/R)]

3. [T & (G&Q)] 2 Comm

4. [T & (Q&G] 3 Comm
5. [(T&Q) & G] 4 Assoc
6. (W/D) 1,5 MP
7. [(W/D) / R] 6 DI
8. [W / (D/R)] 7 Assoc

159
160
 EXERCISE 21

Construct a logical proof of validity using ASSOC.

2. [(A/B) →M]
1.] Prove: X
1. [A & (B&C)]
2. {[C & (B&A)] → X}

4.] Prove: {[H & (Z&T)] & [Y / (X/W)]}

1. (A&Y)
2. {A → [W / (X/Y)]}
2.] Prove: [P/ (W / H)] 3. {[(W/X) / Y] → [(H&Z) & T]}
1. {(R&S) → [(P/W) /H]
2. [(S&R) & H]

3.] Prove: {[A / (B/Z)] & [H & (Y&M)]}

1. [A & (H&Y)]

161
162
5. EQUIVALENCE (Equiv)

There are two ways by which a bi-conditional relationship can be restated. The first
of these two possibilities states that a bi-conditional relationship is equivalent to
either the conjunction of both of the cases of the bi-conditional components or the
conjunction of the denial of each of the bi-conditional components. For example,
the statement

Vanity is bad if and only if simplicity is good.

is equivalent to saying,

Either vanity is bad and simplicity is good, or vanity is not bad and simplicity
is not good.

This restatement actually follows from the analysis of the sentential truth-values of
bi-conditional statements asserting that the bi-conditional relationship can only be
true if both its components are affirmed or if both components are denied. In gen-
eral symbolic form, Equivalence can be stated as

(p↔q) ↔ [(p&q) / (~p&~q)]

Another states that, a bi-conditional relationship is equivalent to the conjunction of

two conditional statements, where the first conditional has the first bi-conditional
component as condition and the second as its consequent, and the second condi-
tional has the second bi-conditional component as condition and the first as its
consequent. Using the same bi-conditional example above, another possible re-
statement of it would be:

If vanity is bad, then simplicity is good and if simplicity is good, then vanity is
bad.

This restatement, on the other hand, follows from the very definition of bi-
conditional relationships: a statement having two components, each one asserted
as a condition of the other simultaneously. This follows the form:

(p↔q) ↔ [(p→q) & (q→p)]

For the application of Equivalence, consider the example below:

1. [(F↔K) → (M&W)]
2. [(F→K) & (K→F)]

Prove: (W↔M)

3. (F↔K) 2 Equiv
4. (M&W) 1,3 MP
5. (W&M) 4 Comm
6. [(W&M) / (~W&~M)] 5 DI
7. (W↔M) 6 Equiv

163
164
 EXERCISE 22

Construct a logical proof of validity using EQUIV.

1. (~E→P)
1.] Prove: (A↔C) 2. (S→Q)
1. [(A→B) & (H→A)] 3. (~P & S)
2. [(C→H) & (B→C)]

4.] Prove: [(~A&~B) & (H→U)]

1. {[(X&Y) & Z] → (A↔B)}
2.] Prove: Z 2. {~(A&B) & [(Y&Z) & X]}
1. [~W & (~P→Y)] 3. {~(U↔H) → ~[Z & (Y&X)]
2. [(~Q→W) & ~Y]
3. [(P↔Q) → Z]

3.] Prove: (E↔Q)

165
166
6. DISTRIBUTION (Dist)
A conjunction of two disjunctive statements having similar disjuncts is the same as
saying it is the disjunction of the originally common disjunct with the conjunction of
the other two components. The common disjunct is then said to be, in effect, dis-
tributed to the conjunction of a disjunction. Similarly, a disjunction of two conjunc-
tive statements having similar conjuncts is the same as saying it is the conjunction
of the originally common conjunct and the disjunction of the other two components.
This time, the common conjunct is then said to be distributed to the disjunction of a
conjunction.
For example, the statement
Either P-noy is an honest leader or both Gloria and Marcos are power-hungry
tyrants.
can be equivalently restated as
It is both the case that either P-noy is an honest leader or Gloria is a power-
hungry tyrant, and either P-noy is an honest leader or Marcos is a power-
hungry tyrant.
Moreover, one may also say that the statement,
P-noy is an honest leader while either Gloria or Marcos is a power-hungry
tyrant.
can also be equivalently stated as
Either P-noy is an honest leader while Gloria is a power-hungry tyrant, or P-
noy is an honest leader while Marcos is a power-hungry tyrant.
In general symbolic form then, this distribution can be stated as

[p / (q&r)] ↔ [(p/q) & (p/r)]

[p & (q/r)] ↔ [(p&q) / (p&r)]

For the application of Distribution, consider the example below:

1. {[(C/D) &A] & [(B/H) & (B/S)]}

2. {[B / (H&S)] → [(~X&Y) & W]}

Prove: {[(A&C) / (D&A)] & [~X & (Y&W)]}

3. [(C/D) & A] 1 Simp

4. [A & (C/D)] 3 Comm
5. [(A&C) / (A&D)] 4 Dist
6. [(A&C) / (D&A)] 5 Comm
7. (B/H) & (B/S)] 1 Simp
8. [B / (H&S)] 7 Dist
9. [(~X&Y) &W] 2,8 MP
10. [~X & (Y&W)] 9 Assoc
11. {[(A&C) / (D&A)] & [~X & (Y&W)]} 6,10 Conj

167
168
 EXERCISE 23

Construct a logical proof of validity using DIST.

2. [(F&T) → ~(U/V)]
1.] Prove: [X & (Y/Z)] 3. [F & (T/I)]
1. (X&Y)

4.] Prove: [X / (A&W)]

1. [(M→X) & (O→A)]
2. [(M→W) & (M&Z)]
2.] Prove: [(A&B) / C]
1. (C/A)
2. (C/B)

3.] Prove: [(F&I) & (U/W)]

1. [U / (W&V)]

169
170
7. TRANSPOSITION (Trans)

An affirmed conditional is equivalent to saying that if the consequent is denied,

then the antecedent is also denied. This rule is reminiscent of Modus Tollens
where, after validly affirming the conditional relationship, if the consequent is de-
nied, then it likewise follows that the condition is denied. In Transposition however,
the inferred statement is not merely the denial of the condition but a new condition-
al statement saying that if the consequent is denied, then the case of the condition
will have to be likewise denied. For example, the statement,

If you always pretend to know, then you are a Sophist.

can be restated to mean the same thing as,

If you are not a sophist, then you don’t always pretend to know.

In general symbolic form, Transposition is stated as

(p→q) ↔ (~q→~p)

An application of Transposition is shown below:

1. (~S → ~X)
2. [(X→S) → (B→A)]

Prove: (~A→~B)

3. (X→S) 1 Trans
4. (B→A) 2,3 MP
5. (~A→~B) 4 Trans

171
172
 EXERCISE 24

Construct a logical proof of validity using TRANS.

1. [(~A→B) & (Y→~Z)]

1.] Prove: (X&Y) 2. [(B→H) & (H→Y)]
1. [(~A→B) →X]
2. [(~A→~I) & (~B→I)]
3. (X→Y)

4.] Prove: [U / (M&W)] & [Z & (X/Y)]

1. [(Z→Y) → (U/W)]
2.] Prove: [(~D→X) & (Z→~A)] 2. [Y → (U/M)]
1. [(A→~Z) & (~X→D)] 3. [Z & (Y/X)]
4. (~Y → ~Z)

3.] Prove: [(~H→A) & (Z→~H)]

173
174
8. EXPORTATION (Export)

A conditional statement having a conjunctive antecedent is the same as stating

another conditional statement whose condition is the first conjunct of the original
antecedent and whose consequent is another conditional statement, having the
second conjunct of original conjunctive antecedent as its antecedent and having
the original consequent as its consequent. For example, the statement

If you always sleep and always eat fatty foods, then you will get fat.

would basically assert the same thing if restated to

If you always sleep, then you will get fat if you always eat fatty foods.

In general, Exportation can be stated as

[(p&q) →r] ↔ [p → (q→r)]

The application of Exportation is shown below:

1. [C → (Q→O)]
2. {~[(H&Y) → F] → ~[~O → ~(C&O)]}

Prove: [H → (~F→~Y)]

1. [(C&Q) → O] 1 Export
2. [~O → ~(C&O)] 3 Trans
3. [(H&Y) → F] 2,4 MT
4. [H → (Y→F)] 5 Export
5. [H → (~F→~Y)] 6 Trans

175
176
 EXERCISE 25

Construct a logical proof of validity using EXPORT.

3.] Prove: [(X&Y) → Z]

1.] Prove: (H→~E) 1. {[(S&T) →U] → (E/Z)}
1. [~B → ~(Z&A)] 2. {[S→(E/Z)] & [(E/Z)→(T→U)]}
2. {[Z→(A→B)] → (E→~H)} 3. {(E/Z) → [X→(Y→Z)]}

4.] Prove: (B/Y)

1. {[A→(B→U)] → (X/Y)}
2.] Prove: [(D→Y) & (D→I)] 2. [~(X/Y) / (X&Y)]
1. [A → (H→Y)] 3. [~U → ~(A&B)]
2. [D → (A&H)]
3. [(A→H) → I]

177
178
9. DENIAL FOR CONJUNCTION (DC)

The Denial of Conjunction is another rule of convenience designed to discuss and

generalize the possible restatements of a negated conditional statement, without
having to do it in a roundabout and tedious way. It states that if it is not the case of
a condition, then it is the same as restating it through a conjunction of the original
antecedent and the negated consequent. For example, the statement

It is not true that if you graduated as a philosophy major, then you are intel-
lectual.

Can also be understood and restated as

You graduated as a philosophy major but you are not intellectual.

In general symbolic terms, DC is stated as

~(p → q) ↔ (p & ~q)

An application of DC is shown below:

1. {(A→B) → ~[(W&X) →Z]}

2. [W → (X→Z)]

Prove: ~B

1. [(W&X) → Z] 2 Export
2. ~(A→B) 1,3 MT
3. (A&~B) 4 DC
4. ~B 5 Simp

179
180
 EXERCISE 26

Construct a logical proof of validity using DC.

1. [~(H→Z) → ~(A→B)]
1.] Prove: (D&M) 2. (H&~Z)
1. ~(M→~D)

4.] Prove: (~Y&E)

1. [(X→Y) → (E→F)]
2.] Prove: (~M & W) 2. [(E→F) → ~(H&~C)]
1. ~(~M→W) 3. ~(H→C)
2. ~(M→~W)

3.] Prove: ~B

181
182
10. DE MORGAN’S RULE (Dem)

Negated conjunction and negated disjunction are known classically as DeMorgan’s

rules. Negated conjunction states that a denied conjoined statement is the same
as stating the disjunction of the negated components of the original negated con-
junction. Hence, a negated conjunction is not the same as the conjunction of the
negated components, but instead is equivalent to the disjunction of the negated
components. For example, the statement

Not both Yodi and Ana teach Philosophy of Science.

can be restated as

Either Yodi or Ana do not teach Philosophy of Science.

Note that what was negated in the original statement is not the individual compo-
nent but the conjunction of the two; not “not this and not that” but “not them togeth-
er.” In general symbolic form, Dem is stated as

~ (p&q) ↔ (~p/~q)

The statement:

Neither Wilson nor Francis teaches philosophy major subjects.

can be restated as

Both Wilson and Francis do not teach philosophy major subjects.

A negated disjunction is the same as saying “neither” of the cases, or easily trans-
latable to “not one and not the other.” In general form Dem can also be stated as

~ (p/q) ↔ (~p&~q)

The application of DeMorgan rule is shown in the next example:

1. [X → ~ (~M/~W)]
2. ~(M&W)

Prove: ~(X&Y)

3. (~M / ~W) 2 Dem

4. ~X 1,3 MT
5. (~X/~Y) 4 DI
6. ~(X&Y) 5 Dem

183
184
 EXERCISE 27

Construct a logical proof of validity using DEM.

1. ~M
1.] Prove: ~(A/B)
1. ~(C&A)
2. (C&~B)

4.] Prove: H
1. [(~P&~Q) → H]
2. [(~G/J) → ~(P/Q)]
2.] Prove: ~(Q/~Z) 3. ~(G&J)
1. ~(Q/~R)
2. Z

3.] Prove: ~(~W&M)

185
186
11. IMPLICATION OF A DISJUNCTION and/or IMPLICATION OF A CONDITIONAL
(Imp)

A disjunctive statement can be restated to an equivalent conditional statement by

the very definition of a strict disjunction. A strict disjunction asserts that it is either
one of the disjuncts or the other. Therefore, given a disjunction, if it is not the case
of one of the disjuncts, then it necessarily implies that it is the case of the other.
For example, the strict (or exclusive) disjunctive statement

Either Roderick or Gulliver is handsome.

can be restated to

If Roderick is not handsome, then Gulliver is.

Properly speaking then, since disjunction could either be inclusive or exclusive,

and no provisions in terms of symbols were made available to capture the exclu-
sive disjunctive sense, then a strict disjunction should then be translated into a
conditional with a negated condition, meaning, if it is not the case of one, then it is
necessarily the case of the other.

Conversely, a conditional statement can be restated to an equivalent disjunctive

statement asserting that it is either the denied condition or the consequent of the
original conditional statement. This rule is based on the converse operation of Dis-
junctive Syllogism, where a denied disjunct of a validly affirmed disjunctive state-
ment implies that therefore it must be the case of the other disjunct. Hence, and for
example, the statement

If Wilson is the oldest in the department, then Dexie is younger than Wilson.

can be restated to

Either Wilson is not the oldest in the department or Dexie is younger than
Wilson.

In general form, Imp can be stated as

(p/q) ↔ (~p→q)
(p→q) ↔ (~p/q)

187
An example of the application of Implication is here below:

1. [(A/B) & (M→L)]

2. [~ (~B→A) / ~ ~ (X&~Y)]

Prove: [~ (X→Y) & (L/~M)]

3. (A/B) 1 Simp
4. (~A→B) 3 Imp
5. (~B→A) 4 Trans
6. ~ ~ (X&~Y) 2,5 DS
7. (X&~Y) 6 DN
8. ~ (X→Y) 7 DC
9. (M→L) 1 Simp
10. (~M / L) 9 Imp
11. (L/~M) 10 Comm
12. [~ (X→Y) & (L/~M)] 8,11 Conj

188
 EXERCISE 28

Construct a logical proof of validity using IMP.

1.] Prove: [(~Q→P) & (Q→P)]

1. [(P/Q) & (P/~Q)]

4.] Prove: (~X→~Z)

1. [(O→~P) →X]
2. (~O/~P)
2.] Prove: (Y→H)
1. [(M→~W) → (H/~Y)]
2. (~W/~M)

3.] Prove: [~D/ (U/Y)]

1. (~U→~D)
189
190
 PART

BRAIN TEASERS

1] On a certain train the crew consists of the brakeman, the fireman, and the engineer. Their
names listed alphabetically are Jones, Robinson, and Smith. On the train are also three
passengers with corresponding names, Mr. Jones, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Smith. The fol-
lowing facts are known:
Mr. Robinson lives in Detroit.
The brakeman lives halfway between Detroit and Chicago.
Mr. Jones earns exactly $20,000.00 a year.
Smith once beat the fireman at billiards.
The brakeman’s next-door neighbor, one of the three passengers mentioned, earns exact-
ly three times as much as the brakeman.
What is the brakeman? the fireman? and the engineer?

2] The employees of a loan company are Mr. Black, Mr. White, Mrs. Coffee, Miss Ambrose,
Mr. Kelly, and Miss Earnshaw. The positions they occupy are manager, assistant manag-
er, cashier, stenographer, teller, and clerk, though not necessarily in that order. The assis-
tant manager is the manager’s grandson; the cashier is the stenographer’s son-in-law; Mr.
Black is a bachelor; Mr. White is 22 years old; Miss Ambrose is the teller’s step-sister; and
Mr. Kelly is the manager’s neighbor.
Who holds each position?

3] Mr. Short, his sister, his son, and his daughter are fond of golf and often play together.
The following statements are true of their foursome:

The best player’s twin and the worst player are of opposite sex.
The best player and the worst player are of the same age.

Who is the best player? The worst player?

4] Of three prisoners in a certain jail: one had a normal vision, the second had only one eye,
and the third was totally blind. All were of at least average intelligence. The jail warden
told the prisoners that from three white hats and two red hats he would select three and
put them on the prisoners’ heads. Each was prevented from seeing what color of the hat
was placed on his head. They were brought together, and the jail warden offered freedom
to the prisoner with normal vision if he could tell what color of hat was on his head. The
prisoner confessed that he couldn’t tell. Next the warden offered freedom to the prisoner
with only one eye if he could tell what color of hat was on his head. The second prisoner
confessed that he couldn’t tell. The jail warden did not bother making the offer to the blind
prisoner, but he agreed to extend the same terms to him when he made the request. The
blind prisoner then smiled broadly and said:

191
 “ I do not need to have my sight;
From what my friends with eyes have said,
I clearly see my hat is _____ !”
How did he know?

5] John was watching television. Just after the midnight news there was a weather forecast:
“It is raining now and will rain for the next two days. However, in 72 hours it will be bright
and sunny.”

”Wrong again,” snorted John. He was correct, but how did he know.

6] There was one very narrow road. It was so narrow that it was quite difficult for even one
vehicle to pass through. On this road, two bus drivers had to cross each other; one com-
ing from one end and the other from another. They managed the crossing easily without
any kind of trouble. How?

7] At the local play group for babies and toddlers, I was asking the mothers about the num-
ber of teddies each of their children has. The four children are aged 1, 2, 3 and 4. Re-
markably, the children have one, two, three and four teddies, although not necessarily re-
spectively. James has more teddies that his age. John is older than Matthew. Curiously
only one child has the same number of teddies as their age. Paul has less teddies than
John and the child aged 3 has two teddies. Paul is the youngest.
How old is each child and how many teddies do they have each?

8] There are five houses in a row, each of a different color, and inhabited by 5 people of dif-
ferent nationalities, with different pets, favorite drinks, and favorite sports. Use the clues
below to determine who owns the monkey and who drinks water.

a. The Englishman lives in the red house.

b. The Spaniard owns the dog.
c. Coffee is drunk in the green house.
d. The Russian drinks tea.
e. The green house is immediately to the right of the white house.
f. The hockey player owns hamsters.
g. The football player lives in the yellow house.
h. Milk is drunk in the middle house.
i. The American lives in the first house on the left.
j. The table tennis player lives in the house next to the man with the fox.
k. The football player lives next to the house where the horse is kept.
l. The basketball player drinks orange juice.
m. The Japanese likes baseball.
n. The American lives next to the blue house.

192
9] Four men have been buried all the way to the neck, only their heads stick out. They can-
not turn their heads, so they can see only in front of them. A wall has been placed be-
tween A and B, so that A cannot see the other 3 (B, C, D), and vice versa. All of them
know in which position the others have been buried. So, for example, B knows that C and
D can see him, even though he can't see them.
A hat has been placed on top of each man's head. All of them know that there are two
black hats and two white hats, but no one is told the colour of the hat he's wearing.

A B C D

They will all be saved if one of them can safely say what color is the hat he's wearing,
without moving or talking to other men who are also buried. Otherwise they'll all be killed.
Which one of them saved the day? And, most importantly, how?

10] Farmer John had a problem. There were a group of brigands that had taken all he had...
except for three things: his prized wolf, his goat, and a box of cabbages. They were com-
ing after him, to get the rest. These brigands did not like water, so John went to the Blue
River, a deep, fast river that no one could swim, and it had no bridges. He always kept a
boat there, because he liked to fish, but it was small. So small, in fact, that he and only
one of his precious things could be in the boat at the same time.
It sounds simple, right? Ferry one item across at a time, and come back for the others?
Well, if John leaves the goat with the cabbages alone on one side of the river the goat will
eat the cabbages. If he leaves the wolf and the goat on one side the wolf will eat the goat.
If john is there, only he can separate the wolf from the goat and the goat from the cab-
bage.
How can farmer John keep his possessions safe from the brigands, without losing a single
one?

11] You have three boxes. One is labelled Apples, one is labelled Oranges, and the last is la-
belled Apples & Oranges. All of the boxes are labelled incorrectly. You are allowed to pick
one fruit from one box. Which box do you choose from and how do you re-label them cor-
rectly?

12] A computer nerd likes to keep five pens in his shirt pocket. The pens are of five different
colours. And their caps, are of the same five colours but none of the caps are on it's cor-
rect coloured pen! Given the visible arrangement below and the following clues, can you
determine the order of each coloured pen?
The black pen is next to the pen with the blue cap.
The green pen is two pens away from the black pen.
The red and blue pens are not adjacent.
The yellow pen is second from the left.

193
13] Three engineers work for the same company. Their names are: Magdy, Nabil and Adel.
Their surnames are: Shokry, Ahmed and Farouk but NOT RESPECTIVELY. Their ages
are: 40, 45, and 50 but not respectively.
From the three clues given below can you discover the full name and age of each engi-
neer?
Mr. Shokry is 10 years older then Mr. Adel.
Mr. Farouk is 45 years old.
Mr. Nabil is younger than Mr. Shokry.
Who is who and how old is he?

14] A doctor has a brother who is an attorney in Alabama, but the attorney in Alabama does
not have a brother who is a doctor.
How can this be?
15] In a certain mythical community, politicians never tell the truth, and non-politicians tell the
truth. A stranger meets three natives, and asks the first of them, “Are you a politician?” the
first native answers the question. The second native then reports that the first native de-
nied being a politician. The third native says that the first native is a politician. How many
of these three natives are politicians?
16] Benno Torelli, genial host at Hamtramck’s most exclusive nightclub, was shot and killed by
a racketeer gang because he fell behind in his protection payments. After considerable
effort on the part of the police, five suspects were brought before the District Attorney, who
asked them what they had to say for themselves. Each of them made three statements,
two true and one false. Their statements were:
Lefty: I did not kill Torelli. I never owned a revolver in all my life. Spike did it.
Red: I did not kill Torelli. I never owned a revolver. The others are all passing the buck.
Dopey: I am innocent: I never saw Butch before. Spike is guilty.
Spike: I am innocent. Butch is the guilty one. Lefty did not tell the truth when he said I did
it.
Butch: I did not kill Torelli. Red is the guilty one. Dopey and I are old pals.
Who did it?
17] During a Memorial Day weekend, four veterans, Allan, Bill, Carl and Dan, had their reun-
ion. They exchanged stories about their previous missions in the Navy. Each of them has
served on two different types of naval vessels. The two who served on an aircraft carrier
together never served on the submarine the other two served together. The two who
served on a destroyer together never served on the cruiser the other two served togeth-
er. Carl and Dan had served on the same ship together. After Allan and Bill served on
the same ship together, Allan and Dan served on another ship together. Allan never
served on a destroyer. Carl and Bill never served on an aircraft carrier. Based on the in-
formation given, fill in the following blanks:
Allan had served on a ________ and a ___________.
Bill had served on a _________ and a ___________.
Carl had served on a ________ and a ___________.
Dan had served on a _________ and a ___________.

194
18] There was once a king who is supposed to reward one of his knights. However, the king
has reservations. So instead of rewarding him a chest of gold coins, he prepared three
treasure chests, labeled as ALL GOLD, ALL SILVER, and MIXTURE. However, the king
intentionally mislabeled these treasure chests to mislead the knight. Each chest contains
2 bags of coins. One chest contains gold coins on both bags. Another chest contains sil-
ver coins on both bags. The third chest has gold coins in one bag, and silver coins on an-
other bag. The knight is allowed only to open only one bag of only one chest. After
which, he has to decide which treasure chest he can bring home as reward. If you were
the knight, from which treasure chest should you open a bag, so that you can bring home
the chest with two bags of gold coins?

19] A man is on his way to the local marketplace to sell a fox, a chicken and some grain. He
has to cross a river, and his boat is just big enough to carry him and one of the other
three.

When he arrives at the river, he knows he's got a problem. If he leaves the fox and the
chicken, the fox eats the chicken. Otherwise, if he leaves the chicken and the grain, the
chicken eats the grain.
How does the man get the fox, the chicken and the grain to the other side of the river?

20] In a faraway land, it was known that if you drank poison, the only way to save yourself is
to drink a stronger poison, which neutralizes the weaker poison. The king that ruled the
land wanted to make sure that he possessed the strongest poison in the kingdom, in order
to ensure his survival, in any situation. So the king called the kingdom’s pharmacist and
the kingdom’s treasurer, he gave each a week to make the strongest poison. Then, each
would drink the other’s poison, then his own, and the one that will survive, will be the one
that had the stronger poison.

The pharmacist went straight to work, but the treasurer knew that he had no chance, for
the pharmacist went straight to work, but the treasurer knew he had no chance, for the
pharmacist was much more experienced in this field, so instead, he made up a plan to
survive and make sure the pharmacist died. On the last day the pharmacist suddenly real-
ized that the treasurer would know he had no chance, so he must have a plan. After a little
thought, the pharmacist realized what the treasurer’s plan must be, and he conducted a
counter plan, to make sure he survives and the treasurer dies. When the time came, the
king summoned both of them. They drank the poison as planned, and the treasurer died,
the pharmacist survived, and the king didn’t get what he wanted. What exactly happened
there?

195
 SOURCES:

Adversalo, Oscar R. (1994) Symbolic logic (A Manual In Philosophy). Baguio: Saint Louis Uni-
versity Press.

Adversalo, Oscar R. Traditional Aristotelian logic (for private use). Baguio: Saint Louis Univer-
sity Press.

Bjorklund, David F. (2005). Children’s thinking: Cognitive development and individual differ-
ences. California: Thomson and Wadsworth.

Copi, Irving M. (1985). Symbolic logic. 7th Edition. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Hurley, Patrick J. (1985). A concise introduction to logic. 2 nd Edition. California: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.

Kelly, John J. (1997). The essence of logic. London: Prentice Hall.

Navia, Luis E. (1999). The adventure of philosophy. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

Simco, Nancy D. and James, Gene G. (1983). Elementary logic. 2 nd Edition. California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

196
197