Midterm Coverage Tutorial

PREREQUISITES OF INFERENCE: GENERAL NOTION OF INFERENCE

The Term as a Part of a Proposition
IN THIS CHAPTER we shall say as much about the term as is absolutely necessary for an
elementary understanding of the proposition and of the function of the term in inference. First
we shall give two preliminary definitions of "term," Next we shall treat of comprehension and
extension and their mutual relationship. Finally we shall treat of two divisions of terms—(a) into
distributive, or divisive, and collective and (h) into singular,-particular, and universal.

1. DEFINITION OF "TERM"
The term must be defined from two points of view: from the point of view of its being a sign of
a concept and from the point of view of its being the ultimate structural element into which a
proposition is resolved. We shall define the oral term ("Term" sometimes signifies the oral
term, sometimes the mental term, and sometimes the written term, depending on the context.)

From the point of view of its being a sign of a concept, the oral term is defined as an articulate
sound that serves as a conventional or arbitrary sign of a concept. We shall explain this
definition at length in the later Chapter. We mention it now only to call attention to the fact
that logic does not deal with terms insofar as they are mere sounds or mere print on a page but
only insofar as they are signs of thought and things—signs, that is, of concepts (or mental
terms), mental propositions, and mental argumentation as well as of the things that are set
before the mind by thought. This is clear from what we mean when we use words. For instance,
when we say the dog is wagging his tail," we do not mean that the word "dog” is wagging its
tail, but that an animal whose nature is signified by “dog" is wagging its tail. Hence, it is clearly
not the mere word "dog” but what the word "dog" stands for that is the true subject of this
proposition.

From the point of view of the term's being the ultimate structural element into which a
preposition and argumentation can be resolved, the term is defined as a word or group of
words that can serve as the subject or predicate of a proposition. 'Thus, in the proposition, A
dog is an animal," the words "dog" and "animal" are terms-"dog" is the subject and "animal”
the predicate.

A term is simple if it consists of a single word, as in the examples given above,

A term is complex if It consists of a group of words that signify one thing or kind of' thing when
they are taken together as a unit. For instance, in the proposition "The black little cat-like
animal with the white strip down its back is a skunk." the complete subject ("the black little cat-
like animal with the white stripe down its back } consists of a dozen words but still is only one
term, because the dozen words constitute a single unit.

Sometimes we use "term* in a broader sense, as signifying any word or group of words that has
meaning and that can be a part of a proposition either by itself or in combination with other
words. In this sense, "black," "little," "cat-like/' "white,* and so on, are terms even when they
are taken singly.

Most terms signify the quiddity, essence, or nature, of the thing or things they stand for; they
express what a thing is or, more precisely, what kind of thing a thing is. "Quiddity is derived
from the Latin word quid, which means "what”, hence "quiddity" means "whatness." In this
context, "essence" and "nature" are nearly synonymous with "quiddity." Terms that signify
quiddities are called significant terms.

Significant terms signify concepts directly and immediately. Since concepts are mental
representations of things, significant terms also signify things-but only indirectly and through
the intermediacy of concepts.

Some terms merely point out things without signifying their quiddities or natures. Such
terms are called nonsignificant terms, Demonstrative pronouns and adjectives (words, that is,
like “this”, "that," and "those") are of this sort. When we say "This is what I’ll buy”, we are not
expressing the nature of the thing we intend to buy, but are merely pointing it out.
("Demonstrative" is derived from demonstro, the Latin word for "I show, indicate, or point out.)

Proper names are likewise nonsignificant terms, since they, too, merely indicate,, or point
out, an individual person or thing without expressing its nature. When we call a certain man Mr.
X, for instance, we do not imply that he is an Xman; and when we call a man Mr., Green, we do
not imply that he is green. The proper names "Mr. X"' and “Mr. Green" do not in any way
signify what kind of man their bearer is.

COMPREHENSION, EXTENSION, AND THEIR INVERSE RELATIONSHIP

On the one hand, we can consider the quiddity (essence, or nature) signified by a term,
directing our attention to the intelligible elements involved in it-that is, to its definition and
properties. If we do this, we are considering the COMPREHENSION of the term. (and of the
concept signified by the term), as when we think of a triangle as a plane figure bounded by
three straight lines. On the-other hand, we can consider the subjects whose quiddity (essence.
or nature) is signified by the term as when we think of a triangle as being either equilateral,
isosceles, or scalene. If we do this, we are considering its EXTENSION.
 Considerations of comprehension and extension pervade the whole of logic, and a correct
understanding of them is absolutely necessary if we are to build our logic on a sound basis.

Comprehension
The comprehension of a term (or concept) is the sum total of the intelligible elements of the
quiddity signified by the term (or concept). These intelligible elements are referred to as notes.
This sum total includes, in the first place, the basic elements that a thing has to have in order to
be thought of as the kind of thing signified by the term; it includes, in the second place,
whatever is deducible from these basic elements. It includes nothing, however, that a thing
does not have to have in order to be the kind of thing signified by the term.

The comprehension of "man," for instance, includes "rational, sentient, animate, corporeal
substance" (the notes that are looked upon us basic to the quiddity of man), together with all
the notes that are deducible from these, such as "capable of speech," "social being." "Man"
cannot be thought of, without contradiction, as lacking any of the elements belonging to the
comprehension of "man." If a man lacked any element of the comprehension of "man," he
would both be a man and not be a man—which is a contradiction and therefore impossible.
Notice how "capable of speech" adds nothing to the comprehension of "man" but merely
expresses what is in it implicitly and deducible from it. All a being needs for speech is the ability
to think (so he will have something to say) and the ability to make some kind of external
movement that can serve as a sign of thought (so he will have something to say it with). As a
rational animal, man has each of these abilities. Because he is rational, he has at least the basic
ability to think and therefore to have something to say; because he is an animal (that is, a
sentient, animate, corporeal substance), he has the ability to make some kind of movement,
which is all he needs to express his thought. (These abilities may be un-developed, as in infants
and morons, or accidentally impeded, as in the insane.)

The comprehension of "man" does not include "tall, white, and European," for a man can be
thought of without contradiction of neither tall nor white nor European.

Note that the comprehension of a term is not limited to what we explicitly think of when we
grasp the meaning of a term; nor does it include only those implications that we actually
deduce from a quiddity. Comprehension is not subjective but objective. It includes all the
intelligible elements objectively contained in a quiddity, whether we actually think of them or
not. The comprehension of a term usually contains many notes of which we have no explicit
knowledge at all. For instance, when an eight-year-old child grasps the quiddity of a right
triangle, his concept has many implications of which he is completely ignorant. He does not
know that the sum of the interior angles is 180°, that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to
the sum of the squares on the sides, and so on. Nevertheless, these implications belong to the
comprehension of his concept.

Our treatment of the predicable (especially of genus, specific difference, and property) and of
definition will throw further light on the nature of comprehension.

Extension
The extension of a term includes the subjects signified by the term. Extension is either absolute
or functional, depending on whether the term is considered in itself and outside of discourse or
as a part of a proposition.

1) ABSOLUTE EXTENSION. The absolute extension of a term or concept is the sum total of the
subjects—of the actual subject as well as the possible subjects—whose quiddity (essence, or
nature) is signified by the term and concept.
This sum total includes everything that has the comprehension of the term—both the kinds of
things possessing it, such as genera and species, and the individuals possessing it. Thus, the
term "man" includes in its extension- all races of men of the past, present, and future; all
individual men, both actual and possible; and even, in a way, the men of fiction and fairy tale.
"Animal" includes both man and the irrational animals in its extension, for the entire
comprehension of "animal" is realized in each of them. A man is an animal; a mouse is an
animal; a mosquito is an animal; each of them has all the constitutive notes of "animal"
(sentient, animate, corporeal substance) and all their implications.
The subjects whose quiddity (essence or nature) is signified by a term are called its inferiors. In
relation to them, the term itself is called a superior. "Man," "brute," "winged horse," "dog,"
"Rover," and so on, are inferiors of the superior "animal."

2) FUNCTIONAL EXTENSION. The functional extension of a term or concept includes only those
subjects that it actually sets before the mind when it is used in discourse. In this sense, the
extension of a term and concept is said to be universal, particular, or singular. It is universal if it
sets before the mind each of the subjects whose nature it signifies; for instance, "every dog"
and "each man." It is particular if it sets before the mind an indeterminately designated portion
of its total possible extension, as do "some men" and "a few animals." It is singular if it sets
before the mind one definitely designated individual or group, as do "this man," "that team,"
and "the tallest man in the room."

DISTRIBUTIVE, or DIVISIVE, AND COLLECTIVE TERMS

Does a term signify the quiddity (essence, or nature) of individuals taken singly or only of
groups of individuals? The answer to this question is the basis for the division of terms into
distributive, or divisive, and collective.

Distributive or Divisive
A term (and concept) is distributive, or divisive, if it signifies the quiddity (essence, or nature) of
individuals taken singly; for instance, "soldier "player,” and "duck."

Collective
A term (or concept) is collective if it signifies the quiddity (essence, or nature) of a group of
individuals but not of those individuals taken singly. The individuals must have some note in
common or must be related to one another in some way, so that the mind can grasp them
together as a unit. "Army," “team," and "flock" are collective terms.
Terms like "family,” "herd," "bevy," "tribe,” 'labor union" and so on, are collective by their very
"nature, since they signify a group by their very definition and independently of the context in
which they occur; moreover, the individual member of a family, herd, bevy, tribe, or labor
union is not a family, herd, and so on, but only a part of one.

At this point we must call attention to the collective use of terms that are not collective by their
very nature. For instance, in the proposition "All the ducks covered the entire pond” the subject
term "all the ducks" is used collectively. No single duck covered the entire pond but only all of
them taken together as a group. Note, however, that the individual ducks of the group covering
the entire pond are ducks, whereas the individual birds making up a flock are not a flock,
Note, too, that collective terms can be universal ("every herd"), particular ("some herd"), and
singular (“this herd”

Singular, Particular, and Universal Terms

A thorough understanding of the division of terms into singular, particular, and universal is
an absolutely necessary prerequisite to the study of inference.
As we have seen, according to its first meaning, the extension of a term is the sum total of the
subject that the term can be applied to. This is called its absolute extension. According to a
second meaning, the extension of a term includes only those subjects to which a term is
actually applied in discourse. This is called its functional extension. In this latter sense, the
extension of a term is said to be singular if the term is applied to one definitely designated
individual or group; particular, if it is applied to un indeterminately designated portion of its
absolute extension; and universal, if it is applied to each of the subjects to which it can be
applied -that is, if it stands for each one of an unlimited class of subjects, or for its total
absolute extension.
This division of terms is so important for the learners to really apply their knowledge in logic.
Members in details of each term must be properly understood by the students in logic.

Singular
A term is singular if it stands for one individual or group and designates that individual or group
definitely. (Notice that ""individual" does riot mean "person" only but "person or thing.")
Proper names, such as "Chicago," "France," and 'John Jones," are singular. Although, many
people have the name "John Jones” still, when we use this name, we use it for one definite
individual whom we intend to designate definitely.

Superlatives in the strict sense are singular by their very nature. Within any given sense of
circumstances and from any single point of view, there can be only one best, highest, lowest,
tallest, and so on; and the designation of a thing as the best,, highest, lowest, tallest, and so on,
is a definite designation.

The demonstrative pronouns 'this" and “that' are singular in as much as they definitely
designate a single individual or group.
Common nouns are singular when they are restricted in their application by demonstrative
adjectives or other modifiers to a single definitely designated individual or group; for instance,
"this man," "that dog," "the tallest man in the room," and "the girl in the front row nearest the
window."

Note that collective nouns ("herd," "team” 'army” "group") are singular if they stand for a
definite group that they designate definitely. Note, too, that nouns that are grammatically
plural are singular from the point of view of logic if they definitely designate one group; for
instance, "those five men” in the proposition "Those five men make up a basketball team, “and
"the ducks" in the proposition "The ducks covered the entire pond"

Particular Terms
A term is particular if it stands for an indeterminately designated portion of its absolute
extension.

A term therefore is particular, first, if it stands for one individual or group without designating it
definitely; and, secondly, if it stands for more than one, but not clearly for all, of the individuals
or groups to which it can be applied. "Some man," "some horses' "three boys/' "several girls/'
"a few apples," and "'most Americans" are particular.
In the proposition 'A horse trampled on the lettuce/' the term "a horse" is particular; it stands
for a definite horse, but does not designate that horse definitely. On the other hand, in the
proposition "This horse trampled on the lettuce," the term "this horse" is singular because it
not only stands for a definite individual horse but also designates this horse definitely.

Universal Terms
A term is universal if it stands for each of the subjects to which it can be applied that is, if it
stands for each one of an unlimited class of subjects. For instance, the terms "every man,"
"each man," "men without exception," and "whatever is heavier than water" are universal.

Note that a term that is grammatically singular is not necessarily singular from the point of view
of logic but might be particular or universal the definite article "the" is prefixed to both singular
and universal terms. "The dog" is singular in "The dog is barking ex-citedly," but universal (at
least virtually) in "The dog is an animal" The indefinite article “a” and "an" is prefixed to both
particular and universal terms. "A dog" is particular in "A dog is yelping" but universal (at least
virtually) in "A dog is an animal," where "a dog" stands for a dog as such and therefore for every
dog.

A term that is used universally (that is, for each individual being as well as for each kind of being
to which it can be applied) is said to be distributed. A term that is not used for its entire
extension is said to be undistributed. A singular term actually stands for the only individual or
group it can be applied to and is therefore used its entire extension. Consequently, in a certain
limited sense, a singular term is also universal. For this reason universal and singular terms are
distributed; particular terms are undistributed.

10. Round shape fruits are rich in Vitamin C, and oranges are rich in Vitamin C as they are round
shape fruits.

IN THIS CHAPTER we shall say as much about the proposition as we have to in order to begin
our treatment of inference. We shall speak mainly of the attributive proposition.

GENERAL NOTION OF THE PROPOSITION

Before treating of the attributive proposition, we shall give a brief explanation of the
proposition in general.
A proposition is defined as a statement in which anything whatsoever is affirmed or denied;
in some propositions the simple existence of a subject is affirmed or denied, as in "God exists"
and "Troy is, no longer." In some, an attribute is affirmed or denied of a subject, as in "A dog is
an animal" and "A dog is not a cat," In some, again, relationships, or connections, between
member propositions are af¬firmed or denied, as in "If it is raining, the ground is probably wet"
and "It is not because he is a Republican that he will not be elected."

A proposition is expressed by what grammarians call a declarative sentence, and must be

distinguished from a question, exclamation, wish, command, and entreaty. The following are
not propositions; "What is a pyramid scam?," "Ouch!," "May God grant them peace ." "Do it
immediately," and "Please come." These are not propositions because in them nothing
whatsoever is either affirmed or denied.

A proposition may also be defined as discourse that expresses either truth or falsity. A
proposition is the only kind of discourse that can be true or false in the strict sense, and every
proposition is the one or the other. If things actually are as a proposition says they are, it is
true; if things are not as it says they are, it is false. Hence, a proposition is the only kind of
discourse that you believe, assume, prove, refute, doubt, or deny. "What is a pyramiding'
"Ouch!, and so on, are neither true nor false, you can neither believe, assume, prove, refute,
doubt, nor deny them.

There are many kinds of propositions -existential and non-existential, simple and compound,
categorical and hypothetical causal, inferential, and so on and so on—but for the present we
shall treat only of the ATTRIBUTIVE OR CATEGORICAL PROPOSITION.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE ATTRIBUTIVE PROPOSITION

An attributive or CATEGORICAL proposition is defined as a proposi¬tion in which a predicate
(P) is affirmed or denied of a subject (S).It has three basic elements: the subject, the predicate
and the copula.

The SUBJECT is that about which something is affirmed or denied. The logical subject, of a
proposition is not always the same as its grammatical subject. Take the example, "We should
elect Smith.” The grammatical subject of this proposition is “we." The logical subject, though (at
least in many contexts), is "the one we should elect." In this proposition we are not affirming
something about "we." Rather, we are telling who it is that we should elect. "The one we
should elect,"" then, is that about which something is affirmed or denied.

The PREDICATE of an attributive proposition is what is affirmed or denied of the subject.

The COPULA is "either "is (am, are)" or "is (am, are) not" If the copula is "is," the proposition is
affirmative; if the copula is "is not," the proposition is negative. Affirmative and negative are the
two kinds of QUALITY that a proposition can have.

In the affirmative proposition the copula joins, unites, or "copu¬lates," the predicate with
the subject; the subject is declared to exist (at least with mental existence) as something
identical with the predicate; and the entire comprehension of the predicate is attrib¬uted to, or
drawn into, the subject. Thus, when we say "A dog is an animal," we declare that "a dog" and
"(some) animal" are identical, that the entire comprehension of "animal" belongs to "dog," and
that to exist as a dog is to exist as an animal.

In the negative proposition the copula separates, or divides, the predicate from the subject. The
identity of the subject and predicate are denied, and an indeterminate portion of the
comprehension of the predicate is excluded from the subject, or vice versa. In other words,
the .subject and predicate of a negative proposition may have many notes, or intelligible
elements, in common; but their compre-hension must differ in at least one respect; each must
either have an attribute that the other does not have or lack an attribute that the other has. A
dog, for instance, is not a cat. Yet both, a dog and a cat are substances, bodies, organisms,
animals, vertebrates, mammals, and so on; finally, however, you come to differences that make
a dog a dog rather than some other animal, and a cat a cat rather than something else; in the
notes that are distinctive of each, a dog and a cat must differ.

For a proposition to be negative, the negative particle must modify the copula itself. If the
negative particle modifies either the subject or the predicate, but not the copula, the
proposition is affirm¬ative. Thus, "Those who have not been vaccinated are likely to get
smallpox" and "He who is not with me is against me" are affirmative propositions because the
"not" belongs to the subject and does not modify the copula. The following are examples of
negative propo¬sitions:
1. Socrates is not sick.
2. Some man is not seated.
3. No cat has nine tails.
4. None of the students will go.
5. He will never go.

Notice that in Example 3 we are not affirming something of a being called "no cat," but are
denying something of every cat. Similarly in Example 4 we are not affirming something of a
being called but are denying something of every student. Hence, since Numbers 3 and 4 deny
something of a subject, they are both nega¬tive propositions.
The mental operation by which we affirm or deny anything what¬soever is called JUDGMENT.
The study of judgment belongs to psychology and epistemology rather than to logic. Logic is
con¬cerned with the mental proposition, which is the internal product that the act of judgment
produces within the mind and with oral and written propositions insofar as they are signs of
mental propo¬sitions, but not with judgment itself.

QUANTITY, OR EXTENSION, OF PROPOSITION

The quantity, or extension, of a proposition is determined by the quantity, or extension, of the
subject term. A proposition is SINGU¬LAR if its subject term is singular, standing for one
definitely desig¬nated individual or group; it is PARTICULAR if its subject term is particular,
standing for an indeterminately designated portion of its absolute extension; and UNIVERSAL if
its subject term is uni¬versal, standing for each of the subjects that it can be applied to.

If the subject term is INDETERMINATE -that is, if it is not modified by any sign of singularity
("this," "that," and so on), par¬ticularity ("some"), or universality ("all," "every," "each")—the
proposition too is indeterminate; you must decide by the sense whether it is to be regarded as
singular, particular, or universal. For instance, "a man" is universal (at least implicitly) in "A man
is a rational animal," but particular in "A man is laughing loudly." In the first example "a man"
stands for man as such and therefore in¬cludes every man; but in the second example it stands
for one indi¬vidual man designated indeterminately.

Propositions like "Germans are good musicians" and "Mothers love their children” are
general propositions. A general proposition expresses something that is true in most instances
or on the whole. The proposition "Germans are good musicians" means that Germans on the
whole, or as a group, are good musicians and is not to be regarded as false because some
German here or there is not a good musician. And the proposition "Mothers love their children"
is not false because some abnormal mothers do not love their children. Since general
propositions admit of exceptions without destroying their truth, they are particular rather than
universal.

Usually you can tell for certain whether an indefinite proposition is singular, particular, or
universal. In case of doubt, however, you should assume that it is particular and thus avoid
attempting to draw more out of your premises than may actually be in them.
We remind you again that many terms, and therefore many propo¬sitions, that are singular
from the point of view of grammar are particular or universal from the point of view of logic;
thus, in the proposition "Man is mortal," "man" is singular grammatically, but universal from
the point of view of logic. We also repeat that a proposition is singular if its subject definitely
designates one group, even if the subject term is plural grammatically. Thus, the proposi¬tion
"Those five men make up a basketball team" is a singular propo¬sition even though "five men"
is plural grammatically.

The form "No S is a P" is the ordinary unambiguous way of ex¬pressing a universal negative
proposition, as in the example "No dog is a cat."