Scribd
Upload
189 views3 pages

Reasoning Inference

This document discusses inference and different types of immediate inference. It defines inference as drawing a conclusion from previous propositions. Immediate inference draws a conclusion directly from one proposition, while mediate inference draws a conclusion using a medium or two propositions. The document then describes the square of opposition and four kinds of immediate inference based on logical opposition of propositions: sub-alternation, contradiction, contrariety, and sub-contrariety. Laws of each kind of opposition are provided regarding truth and falsity.

Uploaded by

Cecilia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
189 views3 pages

Reasoning Inference

This document discusses inference and different types of immediate inference. It defines inference as drawing a conclusion from previous propositions. Immediate inference draws a conclusion directly from one proposition, while mediate inference draws a conclusion using a medium or two propositions. The document then describes the square of opposition and four kinds of immediate inference based on logical opposition of propositions: sub-alternation, contradiction, contrariety, and sub-contrariety. Laws of each kind of opposition are provided regarding truth and falsity.

Uploaded by

Cecilia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST

CALOOCAN CITY

REASONING OR INFERENCE

INFERENCE is a process in which from a relation of propositions, we


infer a conclusion which follows from the former
propositions.

IMMEDIATE INFERENCE MEDIATE INFERENCE


The mind The mind
1) passes from one proposition 1) passes from two propositions
2) without a medium 2) with a medium
3) to a new proposition but not to a 3) to a new proposition and at the
new truth same time to a new truth

KINDS OF IMMEDIATE INFERENCE


1. LOGICAL OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION a relation existing
between a pair of propositions which have the same subject and
predicate but they are different either in quantity, quality or in both
quantity and quality.
SQUARE OF OPPOSITION process in which the symbols A, E, I, O
are placed over and against each other for the purpose of
comparison.

All men are mortal. No men are mortal.


A CONTRARIES E

SUB- SUB-
ALTERNS ALTERNS

I SUB-CONTRARIES O
Some men are mortal. Some men are not mortal.
LOGICAL LAWS OF THE OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS
1. LAWS OF SUB-ALTERNS ( A I ; E O )

TRUTH: (1) The truth of the universals (A/E) involves the truth of the
particulars (I/O).
A TRUE E TRUE
I TRUE O TRUE
(2) The truth of the particulars (I/0) does not involve the truth
of the universals (A/E).
I TRUE O TRUE
A DOUBTFUL E DOUBTFUL
(true/false) (true/false)

FALSITY: (1) The falsity of the particulars (I/O) involves the falsity of
the universals (A/E).
I FALSE O FALSE
A FALSE E FALSE
(2) The falsity of the universals (A/E) does not involve the
falsity of the particulars (I/O).
A FALSE E FALSE
I DOUBTFUL O DOUBTFUL
(true/false) (true/false)

2. LAWS OF CONTRADICTORIES ( A O ; E I )

TRUTH: CONTRADICTORIES CANNOT BE TRUE TOGETHER.


A TRUE E TRUE I TRUE O TRUE
O FALSE I FALSE E FALSE A FALSE

FALSITY: CONTRADICTORIES CANNOT BE FALSE TOGETHER.


A FALSE E FALSE I FALSE O FALSE
O TRUE I TRUE E TRUE A TRUE

3. LAWS OF CONTRARIES ( A E )

TRUTH: CONTRARIES CANNOT BE TRUE TOGETHER.


A TRUE E TRUE
E FALSE A FALSE
FALSITY: CONTRARIES MAYBE FALSE TOGETHER.
A FALSE E FALSE
E DOUBTFUL A DOUBTFUL
(true/false) (true/false)

4. LAWS OF SUB-CONTRARIES ( I O )

FALSITY: SUB-CONTRARIES CANNOT BE FALSE TOGETHER.


I FALSE O FALSE
O TRUE I TRUE

TRUTH: SUB-CONTRARIES MAYBE TRUE TOGETHER.


I TRUE O TRUE
O DOUBTFUL I DOUBTFUL
(true/false) (true/false)

You might also like