UNIT – 1

SENTENCE AND PROPOSITION

Q- Difference between sentence and proposition or Short note on sentence

and proposition
 A sentence is to be understood as any grammatically correct and
complete strings of words, which are expressed in our everyday language.
 In short, sentence is a meaningful arrangement of words.
 Sentence has three parts:
Subject, predicate and a copula.
 sentences are related to linguistic entity where as proposition are related
to logical entity ( related argument).
 every proposition is a sentence but every sentence is not a proposition.
 sentence is neither asserted nor denied where as proposition is believed or
disbelieved, asserted or denied.
 sentence may be interrogative, infirmative, informative but proposition
may be singular, compound, categorical.
 in proposition we need subject and predicate. in sentence we don't need
them.
subject means you are talking about something,predicate means you are talking
about subject, copula means combination of subject and predicate.
sentence example- bring a glass of water
example of proposition - water essential for human being
now water is subject ,
essential for human water is copula ,
after is predicate

This is a book( the sentence can be translated and expressed into various
language but there is only proposition underlined in all these differently
expressed sentences.)
In proposition, we assert or deny any fact or judgement.
CATAGORICAL – singular, compund

Book highlights
PROPOSITION – subject (compulsion)
 A proposition is believed or disbelieved, asserted or denied whereas
sentences are neither asserted nor denied.
 Proposition can be true or false whereas sentences cannot be true or false.
Sentences can be valid or invalid

SENTENCES
 A sentence is to be understood as any grammatically correct and
complete strings of words, which are expressed in our everyday language.
 In short, sentence is a meaningful arrangement of words.
 Sentence has three parts:
Subject, predicate and a copula
TYPES OF SENTENCES:
1. INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES- are you alright?
2. EXCLAMATORY SENTENCES- what a beautiful flower is!
3. IMPERATIVE SENTENCES- come here.
4. INFORMATIVE/ DECLARATIVE SENTENCES- fruits are
nutritious.

PROPOSITION
 A proposition is a unit of reasoning in logic.
 Only indicative sentences can be a proposition.
 Proposition asserts that something is the case or something is not.
 Every proposition is either true or false.
 A proposition is true when it describe the facts correctly and proposition
is false when it does not describe the facts correctly.

ARGUMENTS
 With preposition as building blocks we construct arguments. In any we
affirm on preposition on the basis of some other preposition –( features of
argument)
 In doing this an inference is drawn. Inference is a process that may tie
together a cluster of prepositions.
 Some inference are warranted or correct, others are not. The logician
analyses these clusters of prepositions. Examining the preposition with

Book highlights
 which the process begins and with which the process ends. As well as the
relations among these prepositions.
 Such a cluster of propositions constitutes an argument. Arguments are the
chief concern of logic. In logic, argument refers strictly to any group of
propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which are
regarded as providing support for the truth of that one. For every possible
inference there is a corresponding argument.
 An argument is not merely a collection of propositions; it is a cluster with
a structure that captures or exhibits some inference. We describe this
structure with the terms conclusion and premise.
 The conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the
basis of the other propositions of the argument.
 Those other propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed) as providing
support for the conclusion, are the premises of the argument.
 We will analyze arguments in politics, in ethics, in sports, in religion, in
science, in law, and in everyday life.
 Those who defend these arguments, or who attack them, are usually
aiming to establish the truth (or the falsehood) of the conclusions drawn.
 First, we will be concerned about the form of an argument under
consideration, to determine if that argument is of a kind that is likely to
yield a warranted conclusion.
 Second, we will be concerned about the quality of the argument, to
determine whether it does in fact yield a warranted conclusion.
 Third, the simplest kind of argument consists of one premise and a
conclusion that is claimed to follow from it.
 The order in which premises and conclusion appear can also vary.
 Even when premise and conclusion are united in one sentence, the
conclusion of the argument may come first.

 For example
Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty.

 Explaination – this is only one short sentence, it is an argument because it

contains two propositions, of which the first (every law is an evil) is the
conclusion and the second (every law is an infraction of liberty) is the
premise

Book highlights
 However, no single proposition can be an argument, because an argument
is made up of a group of propositions. Every argument, however—short
or long, simple or complex—consists of a group of propositions of which
one is the conclusion and the other(s) are the premises offered to support
it.

DEDUCTIVE AND INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT

 Every argument makes the claim that its premises provide grounds for the
truth of its conclusion; that claim is the mark of an argument.
 There are two very different ways in which a conclusion may be
supported by its premises, and thus there are two great classes of
arguments: the deductive and the inductive.
 A deductive argument makes the claim that its conclusion is supported
by its premises.
 An inductive argument, in contrast, does not make such a claim.
 For logicians the term validity is applicable only to deductive arguments.
To say that a deductive argument is valid is to say that it is not possible
for its conclusion to be false if its premises are true. Thus we define
validity as follows:
 Deductive argument is valid when, if its premises are true, its conclusion
must be true. Although every deductive argument makes the claim that its
premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion, not all deductive
arguments live up to that claim. Deductive arguments that fail to do so are
invalid. If a deductive argument is not valid, it must be invalid; if it is not
invalid, it must be valid. The central task of deductive logic is to
discriminate valid arguments from invalid ones. The central task of
inductive arguments is to ascertain the facts by which conduct may be
guided directly, or on which other arguments may be built.
 Empirical investigations are undertaken—as in medicine, or social
science, or astronomy—leading, when inductive techniques are applied
appropriately, to factual conclusions, most often concerning cause-and-
effect relation.
 Medical investigators, using inductive methods, are eager to learn the
causes of disease. Inductive arguments make weaker claims than those
made by deductive arguments. Because their conclusions are never
certain, the terms validity and invalidity do not apply to inductive

Book highlights
 arguments. inductive arguments may be “better” or “worse,” “weaker” or
“stronger,” and so on
 Example of deductive argument –
1st – all mamals have lungs (major premise)
2nd – all whales are mamals (minor premise)
3rd – all whales have lungs (conclusion)

Here,
Lungs – major premise – predicate
Mamals – middle term – never comes in conclusion
Whales – minor premise – subject

Structure of argument is as follows :

1. Major premises – it carries major terms P, predicate.
2. Minor premises – it carries minor terms S, subject.
3. Conclusion – ending line to conclude.
4. Middle term – denoted by capital letter M, it comes twice in the
premises.

 Example of inductive argument –

1st – crow x is black (major premise)
2nd – crow y is black (minor premise)
3rd – crow z is black (conclusion)
 Probably all crows are black

There is a possibility in future that one crow atleast is a non black

colour crow. [experimentation/ researching]

Thus we characterize the two types of arguments as follows:

A deductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from
its premises with absolute necessity. an inductive argument is one whose
conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with probability.

EXPLANATION & ARGUMENTS

Passages that appear to be arguments are sometimes not arguments but
explanations. The appearance of words that are common indicators—such

Book highlights
as “because,” “for,” “since,” and “therefore”—cannot settle the matter,
because those words are used both in explanations and in arguments
(although “since” can sometimes refer to temporal succession). We need
to know the intention of the author.

Compare the following two passages:

1. Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also.

2. Therefore is the name of it [the tower] called Babel; because the Lord
did there confound the language of all the earth.

The first passage is clearly an argument. Its conclusion, that one ought to
lay up treasures in heaven, is supported by the premise (here marked by
the word “for”) that one’s heart will be where one’s treasure is laid up.
The second passage, which uses the word “therefore” quite
appropriately, is not an argument. It explains why the tower (whose
construction is recounted in Genesis) is called Babel.
The tower was given this name, we are told, because it was the place
where humankind, formerly speaking one language, became confounded
by many languages—the name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning
“to confound.”
The passage assumes that the reader knows that the tower had that name;
the intention is to explain why that name was given to it.
The phrase, “Therefore is the name of it called Babel,” is not a
conclusion but a completion of the explanation of the naming.
In addition, the clause, “because the Lord did there confound the
language of all the earth,” is not a premise; it could not serve as a reason
for believing that Babel was the name of the tower, because the fact that
that was the name is known by those to whom the passage is addressed.
In this context, “because” indicates that what follows will explain the
giving of that name, Babel, to that tower.
These two passages illustrate the fact that superficially similar passages
may have very different functions.
Whether some passage is an argument or an explanation depends on the
purpose to be served by it.
In an explanation, what is being explained is how the tower of babel
come to have that name. the explanation is that the tower was given this
name because it was the place where humankind, formerly speaking one

Book highlights
language, became confounded by many languages, because the Lord did
there confound the language of all the earth.

VALIDITY AND TRUTH

 A deductive argument is valid when it succeeds in linking, with
logical necessity, the conclusion to its premises.
 Its validity refers to the relation between its propositions—
between the set of propositions that serve as the premises and
the one proposition that serves as the conclusion of that
argument.
 Truth and falsehood, on the other hand, are attributes of
individual propositions. A single statement that serves as a
premise in an argument may be true; the statement that serves as
its conclusion may be false. This conclusion might have been
validly inferred, but to say that any conclusion (or any single
premise) is itself valid or invalid makes no sense.
 Truth is the attribute of those propositions that assert what
really is the case.
 Truth and falsity are attributes of individual propositions or
statements; validity and invalidity are attributes of
arguments.
 Just as the concept of validity cannot apply to single
propositions, the concept of truth cannot apply to arguments.
 Of the several propositions in an argument, some (or all) may
be true and some (or all) may be false.
 The relations between true (or false) propositions and valid (or
invalid) arguments are critical and complicated. We begin by
emphasizing that an argument may be valid even if one or more
of its premises is not true.
 There are many possible combinations of true and false
premises and conclusions in both valid and invalid arguments.
 arguments, each prefaced by the statement of the combination
(of truth and validity) that it represents.

I. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions—true

premises and a true conclusion:

Book highlights
 All mammals have lungs.
All whales are mammals.
Therefore all whales have lungs.

II. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions—false

premises and a false conclusion:

All four-legged creatures have wings.

All spiders have exactly four legs.
Therefore all spiders have wings.

This argument is valid because, if its premises were true, its

conclusion would have to be true also—even though we know that
in fact both the premises and the conclusion of this argument are
false.

III. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions—

all their premises are true, and their conclusions are true as
well:

If I owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then I would be

Wealthy.
I do not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore I am not wealthy.

The true conclusion of this argument does not follow from its true
premises. This will be seen more clearly when the immediately
following illustration is considered.

IV. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and

have a false conclusion. This is illustrated by an argument
exactly like the previous one (III) in form, changed only enough
to make the conclusion false.

Book highlights
 If Bill Gates owned all the gold in Fort Knox, then
Gates would be wealthy.
Bill Gates does not own all the gold in Fort Knox.
Therefore Bill Gates is not wealthy.

The premises of this argument are true, but its conclusion is false.
Such an argument cannot be valid because it is impossible for the
premises of a valid argument to be true and its conclusion to be
false.

V. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true

conclusion:

All fishes are mammals.

All whales are fishes.
Therefore all whales are mammals.

The conclusion of this argument is true, as we know; moreover, it

may be validly inferred from these two premises, both of which are
wildly false.

VI. Some invalid arguments also have false premises and a true
conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

All whales have wings.
Therefore all whales are mammals.

From Examples V and VI taken together, it is clear that we cannot

tell from the fact that an argument has false premises and a true
conclusion whether it is valid or invalid.

VII. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false

propositions—false premises and a false conclusion:

All mammals have wings.

Book highlights
 All whales have wings.
Therefore all mammals are whales.

These seven examples make it clear that there are valid arguments
with false conclusions (Example II), as well as invalid arguments
with true conclusions (Examples III and VI). Hence it is clear that
the truth or falsity of an argument’s conclusion does not by itself
determine the validity or invalidity of that argument. Moreover,
the fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the truth of its
conclusion (Example II).

UNIT – 2
LOGIC AND LANGUAGE

BASIC FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE

Q- Explain basic function of language and what is main concern of logician
language has three major functions:
1. Informative
2. Expressive
3. Directive
To these, we may add two more functions
4. Ceremonial
5. Performative

 Logicians are chiefly concerned with language used informatively–

affirming or denying propositions, formulating or evaluating
arguments, and so on.

Book highlights
 In reasoning it is this informative function of language that is the
principal concern.
 In this informative mode we can distinguish between facts a
sentence formulates and facts about the speaker who formulates
them. If someone says, “War is always the wrong solution to
international conflict,” that may indeed be true, but it is also
evidence of the beliefs of the person who utters that remark.
 When someone says, “I strongly oppose our involvement in this
war on moral grounds,” that is a statement (very probably true)
about the speaker, but it also serves to express a judgment about
the morality of the war under discussion.

Book highlights