M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.
QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 468
468 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
8. None but the brave deserve the fair. Every soldier is brave. Therefore
none but soldiers deserve the fair. (Dx: x deserves the fair; Bx: x is
brave; Sx: x is a soldier)
9. If anything is metallic, then it is breakable. There are breakable orna-
ments. Therefore there are metallic ornaments. (Mx, Bx, Ox)
*10. Only students are members. Only members are welcome. Therefore
all students are welcome. (Sx, Mx, Wx)
10.7 Asyllogistic Inference
All the arguments considered in the preceding two sections were of the form
traditionally called categorical syllogisms. These consist of two premises and a
conclusion, each of which is analyzable either as a singular proposition or as
one of the A, E, I, or O varieties. We turn now to the problem of evaluating
somewhat more complicated arguments. These require no greater logical ap-
paratus than has already been developed, yet they are asyllogistic arguments;
that is, they cannot be reduced to standard-form categorical syllogisms, and
therefore evaluating them requires a more powerful logic than was tradition-
ally used in testing categorical syllogisms.
In this section we are still concerned with general propositions, formed
by quantifying propositional functions that contain only a single individual
variable. In the categorical syllogism, the only kinds of propositional functions
quantified were of the forms ⌽x ⌿x, ⌽x ~⌿x, ⌽x • x, and ⌽x • ~⌿x. Now
we shall be quantifying propositional functions with more complicated internal
structures. An example will help make this clear. Consider the argument
Hotels are both expensive and depressing.
Some hotels are shabby.
Therefore some expensive things are shabby.
This argument, for all its obvious validity, is not amenable to the traditional
sort of analysis. True enough, it could be expressed in terms of A and I propo-
sitions by using the symbols Hx, Bx, Sx, and Ex to abbreviate the propositional
functions “x is a hotel,” “x is both expensive and depressing,” “x is shabby,”
and “x is expensive,” respectively.* Using these abbreviations, we might pro-
pose to symbolize the given argument as
(x) (Hx Bx)
(᭚x) (Hx • Sx)
∴ (᭚x) (Ex • Sx)
*This would, however, violate the restriction stated in the footnote on page 464.
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 469
10.7 Asyllogistic Inference 469
Forcing the argument into the straitjacket of the traditional A and I forms in
this way obscures its validity. The argument just given in symbols is invalid,
although the original argument is perfectly valid. A notation restricted to cate-
gorical propositions here obscures the logical connection between Bx and Ex.
A more adequate analysis is obtained by using Hx, Sx, and Ex, as explained,
plus Dx as an abbreviation for “x is depressing.” By using these symbols, the
original argument can be translated as
1. (x)[Hx (Ex • Dx)]
2. (᭚x)(Hx • Sx)
∴ (᭚x)(Ex • Sx)
Thus symbolized, a demonstration of its validity is easily constructed. One
such demonstration proceeds as follows:
3. Hw • Sw 2, E.I.
4. Hw (Ew • Dw) 1, U.I.
5. Hw 3, Simp.
6. Ew • Dw 4,5, M.P.
7. Ew 6, Simp.
8. Sw • Hw 3, Com.
9. Sw 8, Simp.
10. Ew • Sw 7,9, Conj.
11. (᭚x)(Ex • Sx) 10, E.G.
In symbolizing general propositions that result from quantifying more
complicated propositional functions, care must be taken not to be misled by
the deceptiveness of ordinary English. One cannot translate from English into
our logical notation by following any formal or mechanical rules. In every
case, one must understand the meaning of the English sentence, and then symbolize
that meaning in terms of propositional functions and quantifiers.
Three locutions of ordinary English that are sometimes troublesome are
the following. First, note that a statement such as “All athletes are either very
strong or very quick” is not a disjunction, although it contains the connective
“or.” It definitely does not have the same meaning as “Either all athletes are
very strong or all athletes are very quick.” The former is properly symbolized—
using obvious abbreviations—as
(x)3Ax ) (Sx ∨ Qx)4
whereas the latter is symbolized as
(x)(Ax ) Sx) ∨ (x)(Ax ) Qx)
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 470
470 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
Second, note that a statement such as “Oysters and clams are deli-
cious”—while it can be stated as the conjunction of two general propositions,
“Oysters are delicious and clams are delicious”—also can be stated as a sin-
gle noncompound general proposition; in which case the word “and” is
^
properly symbolized by the “ ” rather than by the “•.” The stated proposi-
tion is symbolized as
(x)3 (Ox ∨ Cx) ) Dx4
not as
(x)3 (Ox • Cx) ) Dx 4
For to say that oysters and clams are delicious is to say that anything is deli-
cious that is either an oyster or a clam, not to say that anything is delicious that
is both an oyster and a clam.
Third, what are called exceptive propositions require very careful attention.
Such propositions—for example, “All except previous winners are eligible”—
may be treated as the conjunction of two general propositions. Using the
example just given, we might reasonably understand the proposition to assert
both that previous winners are not eligible, and that those who are not previ-
ous winners are eligible. It is symbolized as:
(x)(Px ) ~Ex) • (x)(~Px ) Ex)
The same exceptive proposition may also be translated as a noncompound
general proposition that is the universal quantification of a propositional func-
tion containing the symbol for material equivalence “⬅,” a biconditional, and
symbolized thus
(x)(Ex ⬅ ~Px)
which can also be rendered in English as “Anyone is eligible if and only if that
person is not a previous winner.” In general, exceptive propositions are most
conveniently regarded as quantified biconditionals.
Whether a proposition is in fact exceptive is sometimes difficult to deter-
mine. A recent controversy requiring resolution by a federal court panel illus-
trates this contextual difficulty. The Census Act, a law that establishes the rules
for the conduct of the national census every ten years, contains the following
passage:
Sec. 195. Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportion-
ment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary
[of Commerce] shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical
method known as “sampling” in carrying out the provisions of this title.
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 471
10.7 Asyllogistic Inference 471
For the 2000 census, which did determine population for the purposes of appor-
tionment, the Census Bureau sought to use the sampling technique, and was
sued by the House of Representatives, which claimed that the passage quoted
here prohibits sampling in such a census. The Bureau defended its plan, con-
tending that the passage authorizes the use of sampling in some contexts, but
in apportionment contexts leaves the matter undetermined. Which interpreta-
tion of that exceptive provision in the statute is correct?
The court found the House position correct, writing:
Consider the directive “except for my grandmother’s wedding dress, you shall
take the contents of my closet to the cleaners.” It is . . . likely that the grand-
daughter would be upset if the recipient of her directive were to take the wed-
ding dress to the cleaners and subsequently argue that she had left this
decision to his discretion. The reason for this result . . . is because of our back-
ground knowledge concerning wedding dresses: We know they are extraordi-
narily fragile and of deep sentimental value to family members. We therefore
would not expect that a decision to take [that] dress to the cleaners would be
purely discretionary.
The apportionment of Congressional representatives among the states is
the wedding dress in the closet. . . . The apportionment function is the “sole
constitutional function of the decennial enumeration.” The manner in which it
is conducted may impact not only the distribution of representatives among
the states, but also the balance of political power within the House. . . . This
court finds that the Census Act prohibits the use of statistical sampling to deter-
mine the population for the purpose of apportionment of representatives
among the states. . . .*
The exceptive proposition in this statute is thus to be understood as asserting
the conjunction of two propositions: (1) that the use of sampling is not permitted
in the context of apportionment, and (2) that in all other contexts sampling is
discretionary. A controversial sentence in exceptive form must be interpreted in
its context.
In Section 10.5, our list of rules of inference was expanded by four, and we
showed that the expanded list was sufficient to demonstrate the validity of cate-
gorical syllogisms when they are valid. And we have just seen that the same
expanded list suffices to establish the validity of asyllogistic arguments of the
type described. Now we may observe that, just as the expanded list was suffi-
cient to establish validity in asyllogistic arguments, so also the method of proving
syllogisms invalid (explained in Section 10.6) by describing possible nonempty
*Decided by a specially appointed Voting Rights Act panel of three judges on 24 August 1998.
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 11/17/07 12:40 PM Page 472
472 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
universes, or models, is sufficient to prove the invalidity of asyllogistic arguments
of the present type as well. The following asyllogistic argument,
Managers and superintendents are either competent workers or relatives of the
owner.
Anyone who dares to complain must be either a superintendent or a relative of
the owner.
Managers and foremen alone are competent workers.
Someone did dare to complain.
Therefore some superintendent is a relative of the owner.
may be symbolized as
^ ^
(x)[(Mx Sx) 傻 (Cx Rx)]
^
(x)[Dx 傻 (Sx Rx)]
(x)(Mx ⬅ Cx)
(᭚x) Dx
∴ (᭚x)(Sx • Rx)
and we can prove it invalid by describing a possible universe or model con-
taining the single individual a and assigning the truth value true to Ca, Da, Fa,
Ra, and the truth value false to Sa.
EXERCISES
A. Translate the following statements into logical symbolism, in each case
using the abbreviations suggested.
EXAMPLE
1. Apples and oranges are delicious and nutritious. (Ax, Ox, Dx, Nx)
SOLUTION
The meaning of this proposition clearly is that if anything is either
an apple or an orange it is both delicious and nutritious. Hence it is
symbolized as
(x)3 (Ax ∨ Ox) ) (Dx • Nx)4
2. Some foods are edible only if they are cooked. (Fx, Ex, Cx)
3. No car is safe unless it has good brakes. (Cx, Sx, Bx)
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 473
10.7 Asyllogistic Inference 473
4. Any tall man is attractive if he is dark and handsome. (Tx, Mx, Ax,
Dx, Hx)
*5. A gladiator wins if and only if he is lucky. (Gx, Wx, Lx)
6. A boxer who wins if and only if he is lucky is not skillful. (Bx, Wx,
Lx, Sx)
7. Not all people who are wealthy are both educated and cultured. (Px,
Wx, Ex, Cx)
8. Not all tools that are cheap are either soft or breakable. (Tx, Cx, Sx, Bx)
9. Any person is a coward who deserts. (Px, Cx, Dx)
*10. To achieve success, one must work hard if one goes into business, or
study continuously if one enters a profession. (Ax: x achieves success;
Wx: x works hard; Bx: x goes into business; Sx: x studies continuous-
ly; Px: x enters a profession)
11. An old European joke goes like this: In America, everything is per-
mitted that is not forbidden. In Germany, everything is forbidden that
is not permitted. In France, everything is permitted even if it’s forbid-
den. In Russia, everything is forbidden even if it’s permitted. (Ax: x is
in America; Gx: x is in Germany; Fx: x is in France; Rx: x is in Russia;
Px: x is permitted; Nx: x is forbidden)
B. For each of the following, either construct a formal proof of validity or
prove it invalid. If it is to be proved invalid, a model containing as many as
three elements may be required.
^
*1. (x)[(Ax Bx) (Cx • Dx)]
∴ (x)(Bx Cx)
^
2. (᭚x){(Ex • Fx) • [(Ex Fx) (Gx • Hx)]}
∴ (x)(Ex Hx)
3. (x){[ Ix (Jx • ~Kx)] • [Jx (Ix Kx)]}
(᭚x)[(Ix • Jx) • ~Lx]
∴ (᭚x)(Kx • Lx)
^
4. (x)[(Mx • Nx) (Ox Px )]
^
(x)[(Ox • Px) (Qx Rx )]
^
∴ (x)[(Mx Ox) Rx ]
*5. (᭚x)(Sx • Tx)
(᭚x)(Ux • ~Sx)
(᭚x)(Vx • ~Tx)
∴ (᭚x)(Ux • Vx)
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 474
474 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
6. (x)[Wx (Xx Yx)]
(᭚x)[Xx • (Zx • ~Ax)]
(x)[Wx Yx) (Bx Ax)]
∴ (᭚x)(Zx • ~Bx)
7. (᭚x)[Cx • ~(Dx Ex)]
(x)[(Cx • Dx) Fx]
(᭚x)[Ex • ~(Dx Cx)]
(x)(Gx Cx)
∴ (᭚x)(Gx • ~Fx)
8. (x)(Hx Ix)
(x)[(Hx • Ix) Jx]
^
(x)[~Kx (Hx Ix)]
^
(x)[(Jx ~Jx) (Ix Hx)]
^
∴ (x)(Jx Kx)
^ ^
9. (x){(Lx Mx) {[(Nx • Ox) Px] Qx }}
(᭚x)(Mx • ~Lx)
(x){[(Ox Qx) • ~Rx] Mx}
(᭚x)(Lx • ~Mx)
∴ (᭚x)(Nx Rx)
^ ^
*10. (x)[(Sx Tx) ~(Ux Vx)]
(᭚x)(Sx • ~Wx)
(᭚x)(Tx • ~Xx)
(x)(~Wx Xx)
∴ (᭚x)(Ux • ~Vx)
C. For each of the following, either construct a formal proof of its validity or
prove it invalid, in each case using the suggested notation.
*1. Acids and bases are chemicals. Vinegar is an acid. Therefore vinegar
is a chemical. (Ax, Bx, Cx, Vx)
2. Teachers are either enthusiastic or unsuccessful. Teachers are
not all unsuccessful. Therefore there are enthusiastic teachers.
(Tx, Ex, Ux)
3. Argon compounds and sodium compounds are either oily or volatile.
Not all sodium compounds are oily. Therefore some argon com-
pounds are volatile. (Ax, Sx, Ox, Vx)
4. No employee who is either slovenly or discourteous can be pro-
moted. Therefore no discourteous employee can be promoted.
(Ex, Sx, Dx, Px)
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 475
10.7 Asyllogistic Inference 475
*5. No employer who is either inconsiderate or tyrannical can be success-
ful. Some employers are inconsiderate. There are tyrannical employers.
Therefore no employer can be successful. (Ex, Ix, Tx, Sx)
6. There is nothing made of gold that is not expensive. No weapons are
made of silver. Not all weapons are expensive. Therefore not every-
thing is made of gold or silver. (Gx, Ex, Wx, Sx)
7. There is nothing made of tin that is not cheap. No rings are made of
lead. Not everything is either tin or lead. Therefore not all rings are
cheap. (Tx, Cx, Rx, Lx)
8. Some prize fighters are aggressive but not intelligent. All prize
fighters wear gloves. Prize fighters are not all aggressive. Any
slugger is aggressive. Therefore not every slugger wears gloves.
(Px, Ax, Ix, Gx, Sx)
9. Some photographers are skillful but not imaginative. Only artists
are photographers. Photographers are not all skillful. Any journey-
man is skillful. Therefore not every artist is a journeyman. (Px, Sx,
Ix, Ax, Jx)
*10. A book is interesting only if it is well written. A book is well written
only if it is interesting. Therefore any book is both interesting and
well written if it is either interesting or well written. (Bx, Ix, Wx)
D. Do the same (as in Set C) for each of the following.
*1. All citizens who are not traitors are present. All officials are citi-
zens. Some officials are not present. Therefore there are traitors.
(Cx, Tx, Px, Ox)
2. Doctors and lawyers are professional people. Professional people
and executives are respected. Therefore doctors are respected.
(Dx, Lx, Px, Ex, Rx)
3. Only lawyers and politicians are members. Some members are not
college graduates. Therefore some lawyers are not college graduates.
(Lx, Px, Mx, Cx)
4. All cut-rate items are either shopworn or out of date. Nothing shop-
worn is worth buying. Some cut-rate items are worth buying. Therefore
some cut-rate items are out of date. (Cx, Sx, Ox, Wx)
*5. Some diamonds are used for adornment. Only things worn as jewels
or applied as cosmetics are used for adornment. Diamonds are never
applied as cosmetics. Nothing worn as a jewel is properly used
if it has an industrial application. Some diamonds have industrial
applications. Therefore some diamonds are not properly used.
(Dx, Ax, Jx, Cx, Px, Ix)
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 476
476 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
6. No candidate who is either endorsed by labor or opposed by the Tribune
can carry the farm vote. No one can be elected who does not carry the
farm vote. Therefore no candidate endorsed by labor can be elected.
(Cx, Lx, Ox, Fx, Ex)
7. No metal is friable that has been properly tempered. No brass is
properly tempered unless it is given an oil immersion. Some of the ash
trays on the shelf are brass. Everything on the shelf is friable. Brass is
a metal. Therefore some of the ash trays were not given an oil immer-
sion. (Mx: x is metal; Fx: x is friable; Tx: x is properly tempered; Bx: x
is brass; Ox: x is given an oil immersion; Ax: x is an ash tray; Sx: x is
on the shelf)
8. Anyone on the committee who knew the nominee would vote for the
nominee if free to do so. Everyone on the committee was free to vote
for the nominee except those who were either instructed not to by
the party caucus or had pledged support to someone else. Everyone on
the committee knew the nominee. No one who knew the nominee had
pledged support to anyone else. Not everyone on the committee voted
for the nominee. Therefore the party caucus had instructed some
members of the committee not to vote for the nominee. (Cx: x is on
the committee; Kx: x knows the nominee; Vx: x votes for the nominee;
Fx: x is free to vote for the nominee; Ix: x is instructed by the party
caucus not to vote for the nominee; Px: x had pledged support to
someone else)
9. All logicians are deep thinkers and effective writers. To write effec-
tively, one must be economical if one’s audience is general, and
comprehensive if one’s audience is technical. No deep thinker has a
technical audience if he has the ability to reach a general audience.
Some logicians are comprehensive rather than economical. Therefore
not all logicians have the ability to reach a general audience. (Lx: x
is a logician; Dx: x is a deep thinker; Wx: x is an effective writer;
Ex: x is economical; Gx: x’s audience is general; Cx: x is comprehensive;
Tx: x’s audience is technical; Ax: x has the ability to reach a general
audience)
*10. Some criminal robbed the Russell mansion. Whoever robbed the
Russell mansion either had an accomplice among the servants or
had to break in. To break in, one would either have to smash the
door or pick the lock. Only an expert locksmith could have picked
the lock. Had anyone smashed the door, he would have been
heard. Nobody was heard. If the criminal who robbed the Russell
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 477
Summary 477
mansion managed to fool the guard, he must have been a convincing
actor. No one could rob the Russell mansion unless he fooled the
guard. No criminal could be both an expert locksmith and a con-
vincing actor. Therefore some criminal had an accomplice among
the servants. (Cx: x is a criminal; Rx: x robbed the Russell mansion;
Sx: x had an accomplice among the servants; Bx: x broke in; Dx: x
smashed the door; Px: x picked the lock; Lx: x is an expert lock-
smith; Hx: x was heard; Fx: x fooled the guard; Ax: x is a convincing
actor)
11. If anything is expensive it is both valuable and rare. Whatever is
valuable is both desirable and expensive. Therefore if anything is
either valuable or expensive then it must be both valuable and ex-
pensive. (Ex: x is expensive; Vx: x is valuable; Rx: x is rare; Dx: x is
desirable)
12. Figs and grapes are healthful. Nothing healthful is either illaudable or
jejune. Some grapes are jejune and knurly. Some figs are not knurly.
Therefore some figs are illaudable. (Fx: x is a fig; Gx: x is a grape; Hx: x
is healthful; Ix: x is illaudable; Jx: x is jejune; Kx: x is knurly)
13. Figs and grapes are healthful. Nothing healthful is both illaudable
and jejune. Some grapes are jejune and knurly. Some figs are not
knurly. Therefore some figs are not illaudable. (Fx: x is a fig; Gx: x is
a grape; Hx: x is healthful; Ix: x is illaudable; Jx: x is jejune; Kx: x is
knurly)
14. Gold is valuable. Rings are ornaments. Therefore gold rings are valu-
able ornaments. (Gx: x is gold; Vx: x is valuable; Rx: x is a ring; Ox: x
is an ornament)
*15. Oranges are sweet. Lemons are tart. Therefore oranges and lemons
are sweet or tart. (Ox: x is an orange; Sx: x is sweet; Lx: x is a lemon;
Tx: x is tart)
16. Socrates is mortal. Therefore everything is either mortal or not mortal.
(s: Socrates; Mx: x is mortal)
SUMMARY
In Section 10.1, we explained that the analytical techniques of the previous
chapters are not adequate to deal with arguments whose validity depends
on the inner logical structure of noncompound propositions. We described
quantification in general terms as a theory that, with some additional
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 478
478 CHAPTER 10 Quantification Theory
symbolization, enables us to exhibit this inner structure and thereby greatly
enhances our analytical powers.
In Section 10.2, we explained singular propositions and introduced the
symbols for an individual variable x, for individual constants (lowercase
letters a through w), and for attributes (capital letters). We introduced the con-
cept of a propositional function, an expression that contains an individual
variable and becomes a statement when an individual constant is substituted
for the individual variable. A proposition may thus be obtained from a propo-
sitional function by the process of instantiation.
In Section 10.3, we explained how propositions also can be obtained from
propositional functions by means of generalization, that is, by the use of quan-
tifiers such as “everything,” “nothing,” and “some.” We introduced the uni-
versal quantifier (x), meaning “given any x,” and the existential quantifier
(᭚x), meaning “there is at least one x such that.” On a square of opposition, we
showed the relations between universal and existential quantification.
In Section 10.4, we showed how each of the four main types of general
propositions,
䊏 A: universal affirmative propositions
䊏 E: universal negative propositions
䊏 I: particular affirmative propositions
䊏 O: particular negative propositions
is correctly symbolized by propositional functions and quantifiers. We
also explained the modern interpretation of the relations of A, E, I, and O
propositions.
In Section 10.5, we expanded the list of rules of inference, adding four
additional rules:
䊏 Universal Instantiation, U.I.
䊏 Universal Generalization, U.G.
䊏 Existential Instantiation, E.I.
䊏 Existential Generalization, E.G.
and showed how, by using these and the other nineteen rules set forth earlier,
we can construct a formal proof of validity of deductive arguments that
depend on the inner structure of noncompound propositions.
In Section 10.6, we explained how the method of refutation by logical
analogy can be used to prove the invalidity of arguments involving quanti-
fiers by creating a model, or possible universe, containing exactly one, or
exactly two, or exactly three (etc.) individuals and the restatement of the con-
stituent propositions of an argument in that possible universe. An argument
M10_COPI1396_13_SE_C10.QXD 10/22/07 8:42 AM Page 479
Summary 479
involving quantifiers is proved invalid if we can exhibit a possible universe
containing at least one individual, such that the argument’s premises are true
and its conclusion is false in that universe.
In Section 10.7, we explained how we can symbolize and evaluate asyllo-
gistic arguments, those containing propositions not reducible to A, E, I, and O
propositions, or singular propositions. We noted the complexity of exceptive
propositions and other propositions whose logical meaning must first be
understood and then rendered accurately with propositional functions and
quantifiers.
