UGED1111 Logic Week 3 Deductive Reasoning and Basic Logic Part 1: Class Exercise

1) Determine whether each of the following sets is consistent.

1.1) [John has a new secondhand car.] Consistent (if by “new” what is meant is only that it is
something that just came into John’s possession)

1.2) [Peter drinks lemon tea every day. Peter hates drinking lemon tea.] Consistent

1.3) [Some dogs can bark. Some dogs cannot bark. There exists only 1 dog.] Inconsistent
1.4) [Peter is the cleverest person in the world. Peter is not clever.] Consistent
1.5) [Peter cannot move his body at all. He can only walk very slowly.] Inconsistent
1.6) [Peter has drawn a round square.] Inconsistent
1.7) [Peter believes that he has drawn a round square.] Consistent
1.8) [All puddings are nice. This dish is a pudding. No nice thing is wholesome. This dish is
wholesome.] Inconsistent
1.9) [Only creatures that breathe with lungs live in water. X breathes with lung. X does not live
in water.] Consistent
1.10) [If a powerful being that created the universe exists then that being would love human
beings. If such a being loves human beings then he or she would not want them to suffer at all.
Many human beings suffer a lot of. A powerful being that created the universe exists.]
Consistent

1.11) [No person is taller than Peter. Peter is not the tallest person.] Consistent

2) Is “no viruses are deadly” the negation of “all viruses are deadly”? Explain your answer in
terms of contradictories.

No. If one statement is the negation of the other, then they must be contradictories; that is,
they must always have opposite truth values. However, in this case it is logically possible for
both to be false at the same time (e.g. some viruses are deadly and some are not). Hence they
are not contradictories, and one is not the negation of the other.
3) Determine whether the statements in each of the following pairs are (i) contradictories, (ii)
contraries, (iii) subcontraries, or (iv) none of the above.

3.1) All soldiers are brave. All soldiers are cowards. (Assume at least 1 soldier exists.)

Contraries

i. Impossible for both to be true at the same time: If both were true, then, for any existing
soldier, he/she will be both brave and not brave, which is contradictory.
ii. Possible for both to be false at the same time: Possible that all existing soldiers are
mediocre with respect to bravery (i.e. are neither brave nor cowards)

3.2) Some soldiers are brave. Some soldiers are not brave. (Assume at least 1 soldier exists.)
Subcontraries

i. Possible for both to be true at the same time

ii. Impossible for both to be false at the same time
o That “at least 1 soldier is brave is false” simply means “no soldiers are brave”. Since we
work under the assumption that at least 1 solder exists, it follows that in taking the first
statement to be false, we are in effecting affirming the second to be true.
o That “at least 1 soldier is not brave is false” simply means “all soldiers are brave”. Since
we work under the assumption that at least 1 soldier exists, it follows that in taking the
second statement to be false, we are in effecting affirming the first to be true.

3.3) All solders are brave. Some soldiers are not brave. (Assume at least 1 soldier exists.)
Contradictories

3.4) A is bigger than B. B is not smaller than A.

Contradictories

i. Impossible for both to be true at the same time

ii. Impossible for both to be false at the same time
o Suppose the second statement is false; that is, B is smaller than A. But then A must be
bigger than B. Hence, whenever the second is false, the first must be true.
3.5) A is not of the same size as B. A is not bigger than B.

subcontraries

3.6) For every cat, it is cute or black. There exists at least 1 cat that is non-cute and non-black.
Contradictories

4) Fill in the blank in terms of “(not) necessary” and/or “(not) sufficient”.

4.1) That two statements are inconsistent is the not sufficient but necessary condition for their
being contradictories to each other.

4.2) Two statements’ being subcontraries is the sufficient but not necessary condition for their
being consistent with each other.

4.3) Two statements’ being contraries with each other is sufficient but not necessary for their
being inconsistent.

5) Determine whether each of the following arguments is valid or invalid. If invalid, explain it
either by (i) describing a concrete invalidating situation, or (ii) attacking its argument form.

5.1) P1: All girls with big eyes are pretty.

P2: Mary is pretty.

C: Mary has big eyes.

Invalid.

Invalidating situation: All girls with big ears or big eyes are pretty. Mary has big ears though her
eyes are small.

Attacking the argument form: “All lions are mammals. Snoopy is a mammal. Therefore Snoopy
is a lion.”
5.2) P1: 過往太陽均由東方升起。

C: 明天太陽將由東方升起。

不對確。反例 : 大自然定律忽然改變，明天太陽由西面升起。(此事態雖為經驗上不可能，但因沒有矛盾，故邏輯上可能。

5.3) P1: Peter is heavier than John.

P2: John is heavier than David.

C: Peter is heavier than David.

Valid

5.4) P1: Peter is slightly heavier than John.

P2: John is slightly heavier than David.

C: Peter is slightly heavier than David.

Invalid. Invalidating situation: The slight differences in weight add up to a not-so-slight

difference, making Peter substantially heavier than David.

5.5) P1: Someone is sick.

P2: Someone is unhappy.
C: Someone is unhappy and sick.

Invalid. Invalidating situation: All people who are sick are happy. All unhappy people are not
sick.

5.6) P1: John was in Britain when Mary died in Hong Kong.
C: Mary could not have been killed by John.

Invalid. Invalidating situation: After having poisoned Mary, John immediately flew to Britain.
Mary died only 2 days later.

5.7) P1: Most politicians are men.

P2: Most men are dishonest.

 C: Most politicians are dishonest.

Invalid.

Invalidating situation: Suppose there is a total of 100 politicians, 90 of which are honest men.
There is a total of 1000 men, 910 are dishonest non-politicians, the remaining 90 are honest
politicians. In this situation, both premises would be true while the conclusion would be false.

Attacking the argument form: “Most Hong Kong citizens are Chinese. Most Chinese live in
Mainland China. Therefore most Hong Kong citizens live in Mainland China.”

6) Determine whether each of the following is true or false.

6.1) Some arguments, while not completely valid, are almost valid. F

6.2) If an argument has true premises and a false conclusion, then it is necessarily invalid. T

6.3) A valid argument may have false premises and a true conclusion. T

6.4) Being able to determine the truth value of the premises of an argument is necessary for
determining the argument’s validity. F

6.5) If all the premises and the conclusion of an argument are true, then the argument is valid. F

6.6) If all the premises of a valid argument are false as a matter of fact, then the conclusion
must also be factually false. F

6.7) An invalid argument may have a true conclusion. T

7) With reference to the Traditional Square of Opposition, determine whether the following
immediate inferences (直接推理) are valid. (Assume that the subject class – S – has at least 1
member.)

7.1) All S are P. Therefore it is not that some S are not P. Valid
7.2) All S are P. Therefore it is not that no S are P. Valid

7.3) It is not that all S are P. Therefore no S are P. Not valid

7.4) Some S are not P. Therefore no S are P. Not valid

7.5) It is not the case that some S are P. Therefore it is not the case that all S are P. Valid

7.6) It is false that no S are P. Therefore some S are P. Valid

7.7) It is false that some S are P. Therefore some S are not P. Valid

7.8) Some S are P. Therefore it is false that some S are not P. Not valid

8) Fill out the hidden premise(s) and/or conclusion in each of the following passages. Then put
the arguments in standard form. (Note that the passage may contain more than one argument.)
8.1) Gold is a metal. Therefore it conducts electricity.
P1: Gold is a metal.
P2: All metals conduct electricity. (hidden premise)
C: Gold conducts electricity.
8.2) Philosophical works written by Scottish philosophers are difficulty to understand. Hence it
is difficult to understand Hume’s book Treatise on Human Nature.
P1: Philosophical works written by Scottish philosophers are difficulty to understand.
P2: Treatise on Human Nature is a philosophical work written by Hume. (hidden
premise)
P3: Hume is a Scottish philosopher. (hidden premise)
C: It is difficult to understand Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature.
8.3) Abortion should be strictly prohibited by law because it is always morally wrong. Abortion
is always morally wrong because it invariably violates a person’s right to life.
Secondary argument
P1: Abortion invariably violates a person’s right to life.
P2: Actions that invariably violate a person’s right to life are always morally wrong.
(hidden premise)
 C: Abortion is always morally wrong.
Main Argument
P1: Abortion is always morally wrong.
P2: Actions that are morally wrong always should be strictly prohibited by law. (hidden
premise)
C: Abortion should strictly prohibited by law.