LOGIC AND CRITICAL

THINKING
MODULE 5
LESSON I JUDGMENT
OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
1. determine how judgment is made;
2. define truth and falsity
3. relate judgment with proposition
4. distinguish a proposition from a sentence; and
5. identify the three basic types of propositions.

We have learned in the previous module that term represents idea or concept. But being mere raw materials of
knowledge, ideas and concepts cannot be said to be true or false in themselves. Only after you compare or contrast two
or more ideas, or express relations, or an agreement between them that you can speak of truth or falsity. The mental
operation involved here is called judgment.

Judgment is an act in which the mind pronounces the agreement of ideas among themselves. It is a mental process in
which the intellect affirms or denies one idea of another. For instance, our intellect may relate the ideas “this dog” and
“Dalmatian” to affirm. “This dog is a Dalmatian.” This is an example of a judgment expressed in a proposition.
Noticeably, proposition serves as the oral or written expression of the judgment. Often used interchangeably with
statement, proposition is a verbal expression proclaiming a truth or falsity.
TRUTH OR FALSITY

TRUTH is the agreement of a judgment with reality and falsity, the disagreement. If a proposition coincides with
reality, it is true and, if not, it is false. The truth of a proposition is verified by comparing it with the reality it is
supposed to express. To state, “Plato is a woman” is false; while to propose, “This lecture ia about Philosophy” is
true. The “test” of truth, therefore, is agreement of the judgment with reality. We refer to this as objective evidence
and thus our criterion of truth.
Nonetheless, there are statements that are considered true because other propositions verified as true or false
serve as their bases. Such truths are affirmed by the logical process called inference. By inference, we mean
proceeding from the truth-value of one or more propositions to the truth-value of another pertinent and
consequential propositions. Thus, when we affirmed that Hachiko is a dog, we can infer that Hachiko is a mammal.
In this sense, inference can also be considered a pathway to truth.

PROPOSITION (STATEMENT) AND SENTENCE

Ideas are expressed in words which we call terms. In the same way, judgments are expressed in sentences we
call proposition or statements.
 PROPOSITIONS are distinct from sentences. For one thing, proposition, which is an expression of judgment, is made
up of concepts while sentence is made up of words. In a declarative sentence, the proposition is not the sentence itself,
but that which is expressed or asserted, which is either true or false. In other words, a sentence is not the bearer of truth
or falsehood. Being true or false are properties of propositions.
Moreover, while all propositions necessarily contain assertion, not all sentences convey judgment. Some sentences do
not assert or deny anything, hence can not be said to be either true or false. Interrogative sentences, forinstance, are
used to ask questions. Through imperative sentences we issue commands. We express joy, surprise, or some other
emotions through exclamatory sentences. Optative sentences express wishes or desires. These types of sentences, plus
those which take the form of a request, proposal, prayer, greeting, etc. do not explicitly state that something is or is not.
Clearly then, all statements are sentences but not all sentences are propositions.
There is only one kind of sentence that is of prime importance in Logic because it is through this form that judgments
are plainly expressed. It is called declarative sentence (ex., “Santiago is a city”). Nonetheless, declarative sentence is still
not synonymous with proposition because proposition, technically speaking, refers to the judgment expressed in a
declarative sentence.
There are three basic types of propositions: categorical propositions which declare something about two things; and
modal propositions which state the mode or degree in which a term agrees or disagrees with another term.
 The following are examples of modal propositions:
A square must have four sides. (necessary modal)
The car is yellow. (contingent modal)
The patient can die anytime. (possible modal)
A rectangle cannot have three sides. (impossible modal)

LESSON 2. CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION

Objectives:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
1. introduce the logical structure of categorical proposition;
2. identify the quality and quantity of categorical propositions;
3. identify the kinds of categorical propositions according to quantity and quality; and
4. name the steps, and guidelines in transforming ordinary discourse statements into standard form.

In Logic, the statement that relates two classes or “categories” is called a categorical proposition. The classes in question
are denoted respectively by the subject term and the predicate term. In effect, this type of proposition gives a direct assertion of
agreement or disagreement between the two terms. The proposition asserts that either all or part of the class denoted by the
subject term is included in or excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term. Here are some examples of categorical
statement.

1. All dogs are mammals. 2. No acids are bases. 3. Some philosophers are mathematicians
4. Some Chinese are not cheaters.
 The first example asserts that the whole class of dogs are included in the class of mammals; the second declares that
the entire class of acids are excluded from the class of bases; the third states that a part of philosophers are included in
the class of mathematicians; and the last claims that a part of the class of Chinese are excluded from the class of
cheaters.
QUANTITY OF CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS
The “quantity” of a categorical statement is either universal or particular, depending on whether the statement
makes a claim about all members or just some members of the class denoted by the subject term. The quantity of the
subject term determines the quantity of the whole proposition. Since the propositions which take the form “All S are P”
and ” No S are P “ o0bviously assert something about every member of class S, they are considered universal.
Example: All balls are round objects; no plants are rational being.
Statements that take the form “Some S are P” and “Some S are not P” logically assert something about “at least
one” members of class S and hence, are particular.
Example: Some politicians are females; some government officials are not corrupt.
In summary, the quantity of a categorical statement can be determined through the quantifier of the subject term:
“All” and “No” imply universal quantity, while “some” indicates particular quantity.
• QUALITY OF CATEGORICAL STATEMENTS
The “quality “ of a categorical statement is either affirmative or negative depending on whether the statement
affirms or denies class membership. Propositions which have the form “All S are P” and “Some S are P” are affirmative
because in these forms, the subject asserts the predicate.
Example: All rocks are solid objects; Some animals are carnivores.
On the other hand, the predicate is denied or negated by the subject in the statements which have the form “No S
are P” and “Some S are not P”. Hence, they are negative.
Examples: No women are priests ( which is the same as saying “All women are not priests”)
Some animals are not aquatic creatures.
Generally, the copula indicates the quality of a proposition. If the copula is affirmative ( am, is, are), the entire
proposition is affirmative, regardless of whether or not the terms are negative. Similarly, negative copula ( am not, is
not, are not) necessarily makes the whole proposition negative.
THE STANDARD FORM OF A CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION
Combining the quality and quantity of propositions results in four structures of statements known as the four
standard forms of categorical propositions.
 1. Universal Affirmative in which the whole of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
Examples: All reptiles are mammals. All men are mortals.
2. Universal Negative in which the whole of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
Examples: No vegetarians are carnivores. No moons are planets.
3. Particular Affirmative in which a part of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
Examples: Some congressmen are smokers. Some medicines are drugs.
4. Particular Negative in which a part of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
Examples: Some dogs are not Dalmatians. Some students are not athletes.

Since the early Middle Ages, the four types of categorical statements have been designated by letters:
A for Universal Affirmative (All S are P)
E for Universal Negative (No S are P)
I for Particular Affirmative (Some S are P)
O for Particular Negative (Some S are not P)

The letters ‘A’ and ‘I’ came from the first two vowels of the Latin word “affirmo,” which means “I affirm” and are
thus assigned to two affirmative propositions. Letter ‘E’ and ‘O’ came from the two vowels of the Latin word “nego”
which means “I deny” and are so designated to two negative propositions.
 A categorical statement, in standard form, contains four elements:
1. Quantifier – the word that indicates the range of individuals or items referred to in the subject term
(All for A proposition; No for E proposition; Some for I and O propositions)
2. Subject Term – that which designates the idea about which the pronouncement is made ( Ex., the word ‘men’ in All
men are mortals.)
3. Predicate Term – that which designates the idea which is affirmed or denied of the subject. ( Ex., the word ‘mammals’
in All dogs are mammals.)
4. Copula – is the linking verb is or is not ( am, Am not, are, are not) expressing the agreement or disagreement between
the subject term and the predicate term.
As our purpose in Logic is o study the mode in which the mind represents the real order, the question of present, past, or
future is purely accidental. The time-determination does not affect the mental representation, as such. Therefore, the copula
should always be in the present tense of the verb “to be” as it must express the present act of the mind.
Many ordinary discourse statements do not display their logical form. To meet the needs of Logic, we hav the right to
change their wordings as long as the original meaning of the judgment remains the same. Thus, sentences have to be
translated in a manner to conform to the Q – S – C – P form that may be used in logical processes and analysis. In many
occasions, a statement may appear clumsy or unusual when converted to logical form. Just remember that we are not
concerned here with beautiful prose but with the substance of the thought expressed.
 The following steps are helpful in transforming ordinary discourse statements into standard form:
1. Identify the two classes in the statement. Make sure to have two nouns or noun phrases which categorize kinds of
things. When a class term is not mentioned, use a parameter or category that captures the kind of things referred to ( ex.,
people, objects, places, etc.).
2. Identify which class is included in or excluded from the other. Use the former as the subject term, the latter as the
predicate term.
3. Use the quantifier “All” if all of the subject class is included in the predicate term; “No” if all of the subject class
is excluded from the predicate term; “Some” if only part is included in or excluded from the predicate class.
4. If the subject term is totally or partly included in the predicate term, then the statement is affirmative; if the
subject term is totally or partly excluded from the predicate term, then the statement is negative.
5. After determining the proper quantifier, copula, and two proper class terms, write the correct A, E, I, or O
following the order Q – S – C – P order.
The following are some of the guidelines which could further help in properly reducing ordinary statements to the
standard categorical form:
1. Translate general statement as universal statement, unless it points to a “particular” usage.
 The statement “Dogs bark.” should therefore take the quantifier “All.” But the proposition
“Books are expensive” should take the quantifier “Some.”
2. Add the missing complement to an adjective or to a describing phrase to show that they refer
to classes.
Some politicians are kind. Some politicians are kind people.
All parents love their children All parents are per sons who love their children.
Some students passed the board exam. Some students are board passers.
3. Quantifiers that indicate universality or particularity should be replaced by “All . “ or “No”
or “some”, correspondingly:
a. “All” should be used in place of every, any, everybody, always, anything, everything,
whoever, wherever, whatever, and the like
Examples:
Everybody eats vegetable. All persons are vegetarians.
 Whoever is Christian will sympathize. All Christians are sympathizers.
A prayerful student is always successful. All prayerful students are successful individuals.
b. “No” should be used in place of no one, nobody, never, nothing, none, and the like.
Examples:
Nobody plays. No persons are players.
Nothing is permanent. No things are permanent things.
My students never come late. No students of mine are latecomers.
c. “Some” should be used in place of many, several, a few, certain, most, twenty-four, 90%, majority,
minority and the like.
Examples:
A few professors are Logic specialists. Some professors are Logic specialists.
24 firemen are brave. Some firemen are brave people.
Minority of the students like their professor. Some students are persons who like their
professor.
 4. Exclusive statements should be translated into universal statements by dropping the word-indicators
of exclusivity ( ‘none but,’ ‘only’ , and ‘none except’) and reversing the order of the original statement.
Examples:
None but women are deaconesses. All deaconesses are women.
Only toddlers are pre - schoolers. All pre - schoolers are toddlers.
None except declarative sentences are statements. All statements are declarative sentences.
5. Exceptive statements, that is, those that begin with “All except” and “All but,” may be translated into
“E’ or an “A” proposition. In most cases however, E proposition is preferred.
Examples:
All except the leftists are freedom-lovers. ( E ) No leftists are freedom-lovers. Or
( A ) All who are not leftists are freedom- lovers.
All but Filipinos are musicians. ( E ) No Filipinos are musicians or All who are not Filipinos are
musicians.
6. Statements that begin with “Not all” should be translated as an “O’ statement.
 Examples:
Not all professors are Chemistry majors. ( O) Some professors are not Chemistry majors .
7. .”.. Cannot be both …” statements must be reduced into an “E” proposition.
One cannot be both a girl and a boy. (E) No girls are boys.
8. Basic conditional ( ‘If…Then’ ) statements must be reduced into universal propositions.
a. If A is B, then A is C.
Example: If it is a toad, hen it is an amphibian. All toads are amphibians
b. If A is B, then A is not C.
Example: If it is a bird, then I is not a dog No birds are dogs.
There are kinds of sentences which are better left unchanged . For instance, to reduce singular statements like “Andrew is
a physicist ” as “All persons who are like Andrew are physicists” ( as some authors suggest) is to have a problematic
translation. Same s the case with statements that begin with article “a” or “an” as in, “A dog is eating under the table.”
In using these sentences in logical processes, some guidelines have to be considered nonetheless. Sentences that begin
with the article “a” or “an” are usually construed as universal, unless the context ascertains particularity. Thus, “A horse is ä
mammal” is considered a universal proposition ( A) while “A horse is healthy” is treated as particular ( I).
 Singular statements should also be treated as universal statements. Thus, “Sigmund Freud is a
neurologist” is considered as an ‘A’ proposition while “ Karl John is not a mathematician,” an ‘E’
statement.

LESSON 3. DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS

Objectives:
At the end of this module , you are expected to:
1. define ‘distribution of term,’
2. contrast distributed from undistributed term;
‘ 3. figure out the terms in categorical propositions are distributed.

One of the notions involved in the validity of syllogistic reasoning is that of “distribution.” This
module, which may appear to be vague at first, is nonetheless essential in determining whether a
syllogism is valid or invalid Moreover, ‘distribution of terms’ would enlighten us on why statements like
“No males are females” can be validly translated as “No females are males” while “All cats are
quadropeds” cannot be rightly converted to “All quadropeds are cats.”
 Basically, distribution refers to whether a certain class is included or excluded ‘totally’ or ‘partially’
in/from another class. As you would notice, all categorical propositions actually express class inclusion or
exclusion. For instance, the ‘A’ statement “All dogs are mammals” conveys that the class ‘dogs’ is included in
the class ‘mammals’, whereas the ‘E’ statement “No fish are reptiles” states that class ‘fish’ is ‘excluded’ from
the class ‘reptiles.’
Now, we say that the term is ‘distributed’ if the proposition asserts that the class it denotes is included or
excluded ‘total’ in/from another class. If the class inclusion or exclusion is just ‘partial,’ then the term
concerned is ‘undistributed.’
In other words, a term is distributed if the statement makes an assertion about ‘every member’ of the
class ‘S’ then S is distributed; if it asserts something about every member of the class ‘P’, then P is distributed;
otherwise they are undistributed. For example, if I say “All boxers are brave,” the term ‘boxers’ is distributed
because I have referred to all boxers. In contrast, if I say, “Some boxers are rich,” the term ‘boxers’ is not
distributed, since I am referring only to part of the class of boxers.
Now, since each of the four types of statements ( A, E, I, O ) contains two terms, we shall have to
determine for each proposition type whether their respective subject and predicate term are distributed or
not.
• ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAM OF PROPOSITIONS
The following illustrative diagram of propositions will help us acquire a thorough knowledge of the four
categorical propositions: A, E, I and O.
1. Diagram of the A Proposition
NON – CREATURES
All plants are creatures.

Creatures/Non Plants

PLANTS

In the diagram above, the subject term PLANTS is universal as subject of the universal
proposition. The predicate CREATURES is in a wider circle to show that ‘Plants’ are only a portion of
the world of creatures; that there are other creatures which are non-plants like animals, rocks,
people among others. Thus, the predicate CREATURES in the proposition is particular. (Refer also to
the rule on the quantity of predicates of A propositions.) But ALL PLANTS, as subject term, is universal
because the concept CREATURES is applicable to every plant.
 2. DIAGRAM OF ” E “ PROPOSITION
No tree is a stone.

TREE STONE

The subject term TREE is found in a circle totally separated from the circle of
the predicate term STONE. The absolute separation or negation is due to the negative
copula IS NOT or NO – IS. The separation is so absolute and universal that the two
circles of the terms cannot overlap, a tree-stone or stone-tree being would exist. But
there is no such in reality. If you are a stone, you are stone forever. If you are a tree,
you are a tree forever. Nothing in between.
3. DIAGRAM OF ‘I’ PROPOSITION
Some people are women. PEOPLE WOMEN

1 2 3

People but Some Asians are

not Women Filipino’s Women but not
people

The shaded portion (#2), or the overlapped area in the diagram shows that “SOME” of the object
term PEOPLE is identical with the “SOME” of the predicate term WOMEN. The shaded area represents
“SOME PEOPLE” who are women.
By the diagram, it appears that somehow there are women who are not women at the same
time. If the shaded portion points out some people are women, what about the other women in the
circle? Are they not also women as they are in the circle of women?
 Yes, logicians seem to admit that this is a limitation in quantitative presentation. In Logic, let
us keep in mind that to speak of “Some is “ does not necessarily imply that “Some is not” (Agapay,
1991).
4. DIAGRAM OF ‘O ‘ PROPOSITION
Some Asians are not Filipinos. ASIAN FILIPINOS

1 2 3

Asians but not Some Asians

Filipinos but not
Filipinos are Filipinos
Asians

Note and analyze:

Area # 1 shows some Asians who are not Filipinos; they may be Malaysians, Koreans, etc.
Area # 2 shows some Asians who are Filipinos, or some Filipinos who are Asians. And area # 3
indicates some Filipinos who are not Asians. This again is a quantitative limitation in Logic.
The diagram shows the particularity od the subject term and the predicate term as well of
an O proposition.