LOGIC 1 - BLS LLB NOTES SEM 1

LOGIC 1
CHAPTER - 1
NATURE OF LOGIC

SUBJECT AND PREDICATE

EXAMPLES :-
1) Katrina is not drinking maaza
Subject : Katrina
Predicate : is not drinking maaza
2) Munna bhai was eating vada pav
Subject : munna bhai
Predicate : was eating vada pav
3) Amitabh loves chocolate.
Subject : Amitabh
Predicate : loves chocolate
4) Jaya like flower.
Subject : Jaya
Predicate : like flower
5) Aishwarya purchase a nappy
Subject : Aishwarya
Predicate : purchase a nappy
6) Abhishek bought few toys.
Subject : Abhishek
Predicate : bought few toys
7) Lalu asked bipasha if she will come for a movie.
Subject : Lalu asked bipasha
Predicate : if she will come for a movie.
8) Sharukh is one of the famous heroes in India
Subject : Sharukh
Predicate : is one of the famous heroes in India
9) Ram loves Sita.
Subject : Ram
Predicate : loves sita.
10) I have done my work.
Subject : I
Predicate : have done my work.

PREMISES
Statement which includes :
1) Major premises
2) Minor premises
3) Conclusion
Eg :-
1) Shahid love kareena
2) Saif likes Shahid
v Saif loves Kareena
(Common – Middel Term is Shahid)
v Major term : - Predicate of the conclusion
v Minor term : - subject of the conclusion.
EXAMPLES :
· All girls are beautiful
· Sheela is a girl.
v Sheela is beautiful

· All boys are handsome

· Rnbir is a boy
v Ranbir is handsome

· Rabridevi have 11 childrens

· Lalu Prasad loves Rabri devi
v Lalu have 11 childrens

· All students are clever

· I am a student
v I am clever

· All politicians are corrupt.

· I am a politician
v I am a corrupt

1) WHAT IS LOGIC ?
ANS :-
Men sometime reason well, and sometime badly. We use various expressions to
indicate this. The word ‘correct’ , ‘valid’ , & ‘logical’ stands for good reasoning, the
words ‘incorrect’, ‘invalid’ , & ‘illogical’ stands for bad reasoning. The science
which enables us to draw these distinctions is logic. Logic furnish principals and
methods for distinguishing between correct & incorrect reasoning.

2) DEFINE LOGIC & STATE THE TYPES OF DEFINATION ? OR

DEFINATION OF LOGIC ?
ANS :-
· TRADITIONAL DEFINATION :-
 Traditionally, logic was defined as the science, which investigates the general
principal of valid thaught.
· MODERN DEFINATION :-
Logic is a science of implication or of valid inference.
Eg :- All hindus are men.
All Brahmins are hindus.
v All Brahmins are men.

3) DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT :-
A deductive argument is one, in which the premises imply the conclusion. As
such, the conclusion cannot be false, if the premises are true. A deductive
argument is certain.
Eg :- All birds have feathers
All crow are birds.
v All crow have feathers.

4) INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT : -
An inductive argument is one, in which the premises do not provide sufficient
evidence for the conclusion. An inductive argument is probable.
Eg :- A, B and C are intelligent.
A, B, and C are men.
v Men are intelligent.
5) INFERENCE AND IMPLICATION :-
INFERENCE :
An inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusion from premises
know or assumed to be true.
TYPES OF INFERENCE:
IMMEDIATE INFERENCE:
Immediate inference is one, which is derived from single proposition.
Eg:- dogs are animals
v Some animals are dogs
MEDIATE INFERENCE :
A mediate inference is one which is derived from two
proposition co-jointly.
Eg :- every animal is mortal
Every dog is an animal
v Every dog is mortal

6) DEFINATION IMPLICATION :- (5 MARKS)

IMPLICATION :
In an inference the thinker proceeds from the premises to the conclusion. He
does so, because he believes that there is a certain relationship between the
premises and the conclusion. This relation is that of implication.
1) IMPLICANS :-
 Implicans is the statement or (statements) which implies some other statements.
2) IMPLICATE :-
Implicate is the statement which follows from the implicants.
EG: - A is red ---- implicans
v A is coloured ---- implicate.

7) WHAT IS IMPLICANS OR WHAT IS IMPLICATE ? (2 MARKS)

ANS:
EG:- Mahendra is a father
v Mahendra is a man.
In the relation of implication, if the implicans is true, the implicate must be
true. If the relation between the premises and the conclusion were not that of
implication the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises.
EG:- A is the brother of B
v B is the brother of A
In this inference the premises does not imply the conclusion. The conclusion may
be false even if the premises is true. Infect, the premises implies that
“B is either the brother or the sister of A”. Since it may be the case that B is the
sister of A, the above conclusion cannot be drawn.

8) TRUTH AND VALIDITY : (5 – MARKS)

A) TRUTH :
Truth is the property of a proposition. A true proposition represent facts, while a
false proposition does not.
EG:- The earth is round.
Gold is heavier then silver.
There are golden mountain in India
Man can live without oxygen.
The first two proposition are true, while the last two are false. This is because the
first two proposition represent the fact, but the last two do not.
B) VALIDITY :
Validity of an argument depends upon the nature of relationship between it
premises and its conclusion. An argument is valid when its conclusion is a logic
consequence of its premises. When the premises of an argument imply its
conclusion the argument is valid.
EG:- Kareena love dogs
Shahid love kareena
v Shahid love dogs.

9) FORM AND CONTENT :- (SHORT NOTE) (5 – MARKS)

Each inference is about a certain subject matter this is called its contents. Apart
from its constant it has certain other characteristics.
 The contents of an inference is the thaught, idea, opinion, expressed either in
spoken or in written language, while the form of an inference consists of logical
characteristics which are independent of the specified content.

EG:- All politicians are corrupt

Lalu Prasad is a politician
v Lalu Prasad is corrupt.

EG:- All actors are artists.

Sharukh is an actor
v Sharukh is an actor.
It is obvious that these two inference differ in their content. How ever they are
vary similar. In both of them an individual (Lalu Prasan and Sharukh) is stated to
be the member of a class. These class is a member of wider class. In both the
inference there is a certain relation between individual and a class.

CHAPTER - 2
PROPOSITION
1) PROPOSITION : - (2 MARKS)
Proposition is a statement which is either true or false. A proposition is true when
it represents a fact, it is false when it does not.
EG :- Tagore was great poet.
Dogs do not dance.
2) CHARACTERISTIC OF PROPOSITION :
Every proposition is either true or false it cannot be both true and false.
The proposition “India has congress government” appears to be true for some
years, and false some other years. However, wrong impression is created, because
the proposition has not been fully expressed. A proposition is asserted with the
reference to a given date and with reference to that date it cannot be both true
and false. “ India has congress government in the year 2013” it is so expressed,
that it cannot be both true and false.
The truth or falsity of a proposition is definite. The truth or falsity of a
proposition is always remain the same, it cannot be change of course we cannot
know a given statement is true or false. For EG:- today we cannot say whether the
statement “ there are living being on the planet Mars” is true. Further, we may
even hold wrong believe about it truth or falsity. But neither absence of
knowledge nor wrong believes affects the truth or falsity of a statement.
3) PROPOSITION AND FACTS :- (2 MARKS)
Facts determines the truth or falsity of a proposition. If a proposition represents
the facts as they are it is true. If it does not it is false.
 “Butter melts in heat” is a true proposition. While “the has to legs” is a false
proposition. A proposition claims to represents facts. This claim may or may not
be justified. If it is justified, the proposition is true, otherwise it is false.
4) PROPOSITION AND SENTENCE :- (5 MARKS)
Is closely related, as a proposition is expressed in the form of a sentence. But it is
not same as a sentence. The same proposition may be expressed by different
sentence.
EG:. I am an Indian

The three sentences are from different languages, yet they convey the same
proposition this is because a proposition is what a sentence and not the word in
which the statement is made.
EG:. Thief!
What thief would trust a thief!. Truth or Falsity of above sentences are not
possible to determine, so these sentences do not express propositions. So, we can
say that every sentence does not express a proposition. But every proposition is in
the form of a proposition.
KIND OF SENTENCES

1) Assertive sentences / Declarative sentences

A sentence which asserts or declare something
Eg.: Sun rises in the east.

2) Indicative sentences :
Which indicate something.
Eg.: This is my collage.

3) Imperative sentences :
Any order, command, request or suggestion.
Eg.: Don’t touch the flame of the candle.

4) Interrogative sentences :
(?) question is asked.
a) WH – QUESTION
Eg.: What is the time ?
b) YES / NO – QUESTION
Eg.: Lalu Prasad asked Bipasha whether you will come for a movie ?

5) Exclamatory sentences :
Expressing sudden feelings or motions.
Eg.: What a giant he is !
Or Oh! How sad it is.
6) DISTINCTION BETWEEN A SENTENCE AND PROPOSITION (12
MARKS)
In common mans language proposition is equal to sentence. But
technically speaking “ sentence that is either true or false”. So it is clear that all
propositions can be said to be a sentence, but all sentences are not proposition.
Grammatical sentence can be distinguished by proposition in following ways :
1) Grammatical sentences are of four types :-
a) Imperative b) Interrogative c) Exclamatory d) assertive or Indicative, while
proposition is only assertive or indicative types of sentences.
2) As language changes, sentences is grammatically is said to be different, while on
change of language make no difference in proposition.
3) Grammatical sense of subject – predicate understanding is different from logical
one. ‘also in grammatical sentence subject – predicate can change its position,
but in proposition first subject and then predicate’.
4) Grammatical sentence has two divisions only which is Viz. subject and Predicate,
while proposition has one more part Viz. Copula – (helping verb)
5) Grammatical sentence can have multiple subject. As ‘ Time & Tide waits for no
Man’. But proposition has only one subject.
6) Grammatical sentence can be in past, present and future tense, but logical
proposition must be in present tense only.
7) Grammatical can be with or without any quantity or quality, but proposition
must have one quality & one quantity.
8) Grammatical sentence can be true today and false tomorrow, but propositions
truth and falsity must be universal, that is, if it is true then it must be true in all
time and places.
9) Lastly grammatical sentence can be expressed incompletely, while proposition
has to be complete and definite to maintain its condition of true or false of
universality.
Eg.: ‘India has congress government’
(It can be true now, but in the past it can be false, so it is not proposition in real
sense) to be proposition it must be ‘India has congress government in 2013’.

7) CONSTITUENTS AND COMPONENTS : (5 MARKS)

Though proposition is a basic unit of logic, it can be analyz its elements.
However, the elements into which a proposition is analyzed have no existence
apart from the proposition these are called constituents. So, constituents can be
defined as “The elements into which a proposition can be analyzed are called its
constituents.
Eg.: Bipasha is bold and beautiful
In above proposition, Bipasha is bold and beautiful are constituents of given
proposition.
 A constituents is any element of a proposition; it can be a subject, object,
copula.
In every proposition there is a one element which combines the other elements.
This combining element is called as component.
Eg.: John loved Bipasha.
In the above proposition love is combining element i.e. component, so without
combining element there would be no proposition.

8) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMPONENTS AND CONSTITUENTS

1) A component is universal; while the constituents it combines can be particular.
This is the reason, constituents and components combined may be changed, yet
the proposition would be meaningful.
We will change individuals combine by the component ‘Loved’ and still
proposition would be meaningful.
Eg.: Mother loved children
Romio loved Juliet.
In this, the component (combining element) ‘Loved’ cannot be replaced by
individual.
2) Every proposition is about certain contents (subject matters) A constituents
indicate the contents of a proposition. Since the contents of proposition differ,
their constituents too differ, however even though proposition differ in their
constituents they may have sense from
Eg.: Ram is honest
Rahul is handsome
Raman is clever.
All these above proposition assert that an individual possessive a quality, thus the
above proposition have different constituent, but the relation between the
constituent is same.
3) The form of a proposition depends upon the why he constituents are combine.
That is to say, form of a proposition, depends upon a component, however a
component, is not to be identified with the words, through which is expressed,
the following proposition have different component, though in all of them the
component is expressed by the same word “is”.

Eg.: Sharukh is hulk

Sonunigam is singer
Crow is bird
In the first proposition, the component Is predication, the attribute of hulk is
affirm to sharukh.
In the second proposition, the component is membership of a class. Sonunigam is
a member of the class of a singer.
In the last proposition, the component is class enclosure. The class of crow is
included in the class of birds.
9) COPULA :-
 Copula is a word which act as a connector between subject and predicate
Eg.: The house is on the top of hill.

CHAPTER 3
TERMS

1) TERM : ( 2 MARKS )
The term is a word or group of word which stand as a subject and predicate of a
logical proposition
Eg.: India is a rich country with poor people.
In the above proposition the subject term ‘India’ is single word, but the predicate
term ‘is a rich country with poor people’ is a group of word.
2) WORD : ( 2 MARKS )
A sentence consists of words, as such, the subject and predicate of a proposition
are words.
Though every term is a word (or combination of words) every word is not a term.
A word becomes a term when it stand as subject or predicate in a proposition.
TYPES OF WORDS :-
There are three types of words :-
A) CATEGROMATIC :
These word stand as term without any support of other words like, Himalaya,
Ram, Goa, etc.
B) SYNCATEGROMATIC :
This words are dependent on categromatic words and cannot become term itself.
Eg.: a, an, the, is, etc.
C) ACATEGROMATIC :
This words are expressive feelings, emotion, or exclamation. They never become
term.
Eg.: Oh!, Oops!, etc.

3) DISTINCTION BETWEEN A TERM AND WORD ( 2 MARKS )

1) The meaning of a term depends upon its being as element in a proposition. But
when a word is the subject or the predicate of the proposition its meaning
become definite.
Word have an independent meaning however, when words are considered by
themselves they may have more then one meaning.
Eg.: The word sound ‘sound’ have more then one meaning,
sound may mean ‘that which is heard, or it may mean ‘free from defect’.
2) Terms can express only information, thought or reasoning’s. They cannot
express feeling, question, wishes, request, commands, etc. on the other hand,
words may express not only information, thoughts, or reasoning, but also
 question, wishes, request, command, etc. terms are concerned with informative
use of languages, words are not restricted so informative use.

4) GENERAL AND SINGULAR TERM ( 2 MARKS )

1) GENERAL TERM :-
General term is that which can be applied in the same sense, to each of an
indefinite number of objects, having certain comman quality.
Eg.: All hindus are Indian.
In the above proposition the subject term ‘Hindus’ applies to every hindus, and
the predicate term ‘Indians’ applies to every Indian.
2) SINGULAR TERM :-
Is that which can be applied to one definite object.
Eg.: Lalu Prasad is a politician
Singular terms are of two kinds these are proper names and designation.
Proper name (term) :-
Proper name term is a mark which distinguishes a individual person or thing
It does not indicate the possession of any attribute, such name are mostly those
of persons, places and pet animals.
Eg.: Ram, Mumbai, Tajmahal.
DESIGNATION :-
Designation indicate one definite object by stating an attribute which only that
object possess.
Eg.: This man, That author, Those books.
5) POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE TERM :
1) POSITIVE TERM :
Positive term implies the presence of attribute.
Eg.: Living, Present, Equal.
2) NEGATIVE TERM :
Negative term is one which implies the absence of attribute.
Eg.: Non living, Non present, Non equal.
3) UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE :
Universe of discourse, the limits to the application of a term constitute its
universe of discourse.
Eg.: Not white.

6) CONTRADICTORY AND CONTRARY :

1) CONTRADICTORY TERMS :
Terms that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive are contradictory.
Eg.: White & Non white.
2) CONTRARY TERMS :
Contrary terms are those which expressed greatest degree in the same universe if
discourse. They are mutually exclusive.
Eg.: Black & white, Good & bad, Happy & sad, Dead & alive.
7) DENOTATION & CONNOTATION :
1) DENOTATION :
It consist of all individual object to which it can be applied.
Eg.: City, Man.
2) CONNOTATION :
It consist of the common attribute posses by all the objects to which the term is
applied.
Eg.: Rationality, Animality, Humanity.

CHAPTER 4
TRADITIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITION
1) SIMPLE AND COMPOUND PROPOSITION :
a) Simple proposition :
A simple proposition is one which affirms or derive a predicate of a subject.
Eg.: All girls are beautiful.
All politicians are not corrupt.
b) Compound proposition :
When a proposition makes an assertion under certain conditions it is called a
compound proposition.
Eg.: If John ride bike, then Bipasha will love him.
Either Abhishek is a Ra-one or Bluffmaster.
2) CATEGORICAL & CONDITIONAL PROPOSITION :
a) Categorical proposition :
A categorical proposition which affirms or denies a predicate of a subject.
Eg.: All girls are beautiful.
All politicians are not corrupt.
b) Conditional proposition :
When a proposition makes an assertion under certain conditions it is called a
conditional proposition.
Eg.: If John ride bike, then Bipasha will love him.
Either Abhishek is a Ra-one or Bluffmaster.
Conditional propositions are of two kinds & these are hypothetical and
disjunctive proposition.
1) Hypothetical proposition :
Hypothetical proposition is one which presence a condition together with some
consequence which follows from it.
Eg.: if Ranbir proposes Katrina, then Salman will beat him.
2) Disjunctive proposition :
Disjunctive proposition is one which state alternatives.
Eg.: Either salman will marry, or he will remain bachelor
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITION
 SIMPLE
COMPOUND
CATEGORICAL
CONDITIONAL
HYPOTHETICAL
DISJUNCTION
IF …. THEN
EITHER ….. OR
3) FOUR FOLD CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITION :
a) UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE (A) :-
In this kind of proposition the predicate is affirm of the whole subject.
Eg.: All boys are handsome
b) UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE (E) :-
In this kind of proposition the predicate is denied of the whole subject.
Eg.: No politician are moral.
c) PARTICULAR AFFIRMATIVE (I) :-
In this kind of proposition the predicate is affirm of the part of subject.
Eg.: Some actors are singers.
d) PARTICULAR NEGATIVE (O) :-
In this kind of proposition, the predicate is denied of the part of the subject.
Eg.: Some wives are not dominating.

A All S is P
E No S is P
I Some S is P
O Some S is Not P

4) REDUCTION OF STATEMENT TO LOGICAL FORM :

A Affirmative sentence with all, every, each, any, always,

whether,
invariably, necessarily, absolutely.

E Sentence with No, never, none, not at all, not a single, not even
one.
I Affirmative sentence with, most, many a few, certain, all most
all, all but one several, mostly, generally, frequently, often,
perhaps, nearly, sometimes, occasionally.
O When ‘A’ is denied we got ‘O’; when affirmative sentence
which contain words indicating ‘I’ are denied we got ‘O’

EXAMPLE :-
1) Every man is responsible for his actions.
· All men are those who are responsible for his actions.

2) Any men can lift this weight.

· All men are those who can lift this weight.

3) All that glitters is not gold.

· Something are those who glitters is not gold.

4) Every military general does not have a sound plan for defense.
· Some military general are those who does not have a sound plan for defense.

5) What ever goes up must come down.

· All things are those who goes up must come down.

6) Men are not necessarily bad.

· Some men are those who are not necessarily bad.

7) Not a single members of the crew was saved.

· No single member are those of the crew was saved.

8) Not even one mango in the basket was rotten.

· No mango are those in the basket was rotten.

9) Judges are not at all partial.

· No judges are those who are partial.

10) Most houses in japan are build of light material.

· Some houses in japan are those who are build of light material.

11) All most all the passenger were injured.

· Some passenger are those who were injured.

12) A few donors did not help the victims of famine in Bihar.
· Some donors are those who did not help the victims of famine in Bihar.

13) All but one member of the picnic party did not return safe.
· Some but one member of the picnic are those who did not return safe.

14) Central railway trains frequently run late.

· Some central railway train are those who run frequently run late.

15) Perhaps modern men do not care for religion.

· Some modern men are those who do not care for religion.
16) Few men are free from vanity.
· Some men are not those who are not free from vanity.

17) Few have peace of mind who prosper by cheating.

· Some men do not have peace of mind who prosper by cheating.

18) Few nation do not wish to avoid third world war.

· Some nation are those who wish to avoid third world war.

19) Few great men are not considerate.

· Some great men are those who considerate.

20) A few thieves are kind hearted.

· Some thieves are those who are kind hearted.

5) INDEFINITE PROPOSITION :
Indefinite proposition is one in which quantity is not definite.
Eg.: 1) Planet revolve round the sun
· All planet revolve round the sun (A)
Muslims are not idol worshipers
· No muslims are idol worshipers (E)

South Indians are black

· Some south Indians are black (I)
·
6) MULTIPLE QUALIFICATION :
Sometimes the predicate is affirm or denied of the subject under certain
limitations. This limitation is by reference to time or place. This limitation leads
to secondary quantification of the proposition.
Eg.: Men sometimes lose their temper
· All men lose their temper sometimes. (A)
He always order the expensive item in the menu.
· He is a person who order the expensive item in the menu always. (A)

7) EXCLUSIVE PROPOSITION :
Exclusive proposition is one which limits the application of the predicate to the
subject only. These proposition are indicated by the expression like, only, alone,
none but, & nothing else but. These are to be reduced to A & E propositions.
Eg.: Only experts can judge scientific matters
· All experts can judge scientific matters (A)
· No non-experts can judge scientific matters. (E)
 Eg.: None but, graduate can vote.
· All graduate can vote (A)
· No non-graduate can vote. (E)
EXERCISE:
1) Brother sometimes quarrel with each other.
All brother quarrel with each other sometimes. (MQ)

2) A few distinguished men have undistinguished son.

Some distinguished men have undistinguished son. (I)

3) Grapes come from nasik

Some grapes come from nasik. (I)

4) Hardly any men is tolerant.

Some men are those who are not tolerant. (I)

5) Women are jealous.

Some women are jealous.

6) No one like to be wrong.

No person are those who likes to be wrong.

7) Only those who are registered are permitted to vote.

All those who are registered are permitted to vote. (A)
No person who are non – registered are permitted to vote. (E)

8) People who like sheela also like munni.

All people who like sheela also like munni.

9) Few children do not like circus.

Some children are those who love circus. (E)

10) Only human being are intelligent.

All human being are intelligent. (A)
No non human being are intelligent (E)

11) None but gold will silence her.

All golden thing will silence her. (A)
No non golden will silence her. (E)

CHAPTER 4. MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF

PROPOSITIONS
4. MODERN CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
a) Aim of Modern classification, kinds of Simple and Compound propositions
b) Basic Truth Tables for Compound propositions.
Traditional logic deals with limited types of propositions. So, it was difficult to deal
with many types of propositions. This is the reason why Modern Logic or formal
logic came into existence. It follows and expands on Logic given by Aristotle.
This logic simplifies the way in which we reason. It also makes difference
between form and content of propositions and arguments. This logic has
introduced mathematical formal methods in logic and with the help of these
methods, we can test the valid relationships between terms and propositions in
no time.
Let us see the modern classification and its details:

a) Aim of Modern classification,.

Modern logic aims at re-organizing the logical concepts and expanding the
boundaries of logical thinking. While doing so, we look at the statements used in
logic with a different perspective.
This is the reason why we classify them a bit differently here on the basis of
terms, verbs and connectives used in them. This way to classify the propositions
makes it easy to understand the relationship between parts of the propositions in
an argument as here we make them have objective and mathematical
appearance.
Modern classification tries to simplify our thinking and also organize it more
effectively so that more types of reasoning can be included in the classification.

Kinds of Simple and Compound propositions & basic Truth Tables

In modern logic, simple proposition is defined as one with only one verb in it.
Such a proposition has no connective in it. The simple proposition have no
connective. They have only one verb and do not indicate any complicated
meaning.

The Simple propositions are classified into two types,

a) subject-less propositions, b) subject-predicate propositions,
The subject-predicate propositions are further classified into
i) relational propositions and ii) class membership proposition.

Let us see the simple proposition types in details:

a) Subject-less propositions, are propositions that have only predicate and no
subject. These are symbolized by using single alphabet that stands for predicate.
b) Subject-predicate propositions, are the propositions that have a subject, a
predicate and a verb. The subject-predicate propositions are further classified
into two types. Relational and class-membership. Let us see these types:
i) Relational propositions are the propositions that show some type of
relationship between the term of subject and that of predicate. This means in this
type, both the subject and predicate are singular terms.
ii) Class membership proposition shows that the subject term belon gs to the
class indicated by predicate. So, here, predicate term is general.

Modern logic also defines a compound proposition that has one or more
components connected using one or more connectives.

The compound propositions have at least one connective used in them. They
have one or more component that connectives join meaningfully.
When we express these propositions in an objective way, we can explicitly state
whether the given compound proposition is true or not on the basis of truth or
falsity of the components it connects and the type of connective used.
In modern logic the connecting words, commonly called as connectives, are
classified into two types, viz. Monadic and Diadic.

Monadic connective is a connective that works on only one proposition.

The class of monadic connectives has only one connective in it.

This is negation.
This means in modern logic, negative proposition is no more with different
quality.
It is a compound proposition.

A negation is expressed by words like 'no, never, not' etc.

While symbolizing a negation, we use the symbol ' ~ ' that is called curl or tilde.
A negation is true when the component to which it is attached is false.

Diadic connectives are connectives that work on two propositions. We have four
diadic connectives. They are; conjunction, disjunction, implication and
equivalence.

Conjunction is expressed by words like 'and, but'.

While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' . ' called a dot.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are true.

Dis-junction is expressed by words like 'either, or.'

While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' v ' called a vedge.
A proposition with disjunction is false only when both its components are false.

Implication is expressed by words like 'If...then, unless...'

While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' ' called a horse-shoe.
A proposition with implication is false only when its antecedent, i.e. the first
component is true and the consequent, i.e. the second component is false.

Equivalence is expressed by words like 'if and only if... then.'

While symbolizing this, we use the symbol ' ' called a dot.
A proposition with conjunction is true only when both its components are true.

Let us see this classification at a glance:

Proposition
Sentence that asserts
|
||
Simple Compound (with connective)
No connective one or more components
||
||||
Subject-less Subject-predicate Monadic Diadic
No subject | one component two component
| | …........................|
| | Negation 1 = Conjunction = .
Relational Class-membership =No, Not 2 = Dis junction = V
= ~ 3 = Implication =
4 = Equivalence=

b) Basic Truth Tables for Compound propositions

We saw the connectives and their symbols. Now let us see how the propositions
are symbolized in modern classification.

Compound propositions are symbolized in modern classification by taking a

capital alphabet for the first letter of the predicate of first component simple
statement, and a capital alphabet for the first letter of the predicate of the second
component simple statement.
Between these two alphabets, we put the symbol for the connective that is
connecting these two components.

This means, if we have a proposition,

'If Logic is easy, then many will learn it.'
we take 'E' for 'logic is easy' and ' L' for 'many will learn it'.
The connective here is implication. The symbol for it is, .
We write this in between E and L. This reads as 'E L'

This is how we can symbolize any given proposition in modern logic.

So, if we take standard alphabets P for first component and Q for second, we can
express all compound proposition types as follows:
Negation: ~P
Conjunction: P . Q
Dis-junction: P v Q
Implication: P Q
Equivalence: P Q
The method we use to check the validity of their relations is called the method of
constructing truth tables. While doing this, we check the possibilities of truth and
falsity in both the components.

We arrange these possibilities here using the 2n method of calculating the

possibilities. Here 2 stands for the two truth value options, viz. True and false.
The alphabet 'n' stands for number of variables present in the compound
proposition.

If a proposition has only one variable, that means only one simple proposition,
even if it is repeated, then we have 21 = 2 possibilities of truth value
combinations.

If a proposition has two different simple statements as components, then we

have 22 = 4 possibilities of truth value combinations.

If a proposition has three different simple statements as components, then we

have 23 = 8 possibilities of truth value combinations.

If a proposition has four different simple statements as components, then we

have 24 = 16 possibilities of truth value combinations.

Of course, for learning the basic truth-functional tables, we need to see only the
first two options, i.e. the statements with 2 and 4 combination options.

When we have a single component as in ~P, we write the truth table as:

P ~P
TF
FT
When we have two components as in P . Q, P v Q, P Q, P Q, we make the truth
tables by using the terms of validity of each connective as follows:

Let us write possibilities for all proposition types together for easy understanding.

PQP.QPvQPQPQ
TTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TFTFFTTFTFFTFF
FTFFTFTTFTTFFT
FFFFFFFFFTFFTF

On the basis of the above table, we can pick up the table for any relavent
proposition type to be symbolized and form a truth table for it.

While doing this, follow the following steps:

Write the first part of 'P Q' and the truth values under it
then write the proposition type as per the connective.
Like,

Negation: ~P
Conjunction: P . Q
Dis-junction: P v Q
Implication: P Q
Equivalence: P Q

Then form the relevant truth table for it.

Suppose we have a proposition like, 'Law is useful and Religion is peaceful”

We symbolize it as 'U . P' Then we form a truth table for it as:

UPU.P
TTTTT
TFTFF
FTFFT
FFFFF

Suppose we have a proposition like, 'Law is useful or Religion is peaceful”

We symbolize it as 'U v P' Then we form a truth table for it as:

UPUvP
TTTTT
TFTTF
FTFTT
FFFFF

Suppose we have a proposition like, 'If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U P' Then we form a truth table for it as:

UPUP
TTTTT
TFTFF
FTFTT
FFFTF

Suppose we have proposition, 'If & only If Law is useful then Religion is peaceful”
We symbolize it as 'U P' Then we form a truth table for it as:

UPUP
TTTTT
TFTFF
FTFFT
FFFTF

CHAPTER 5. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

TRADITIONAL & MODERN CLASSIFICATION
5. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TRADITIONAL AND MODERN
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSITIONS
a) Distinction between the Traditional and Modern General propositions.
b) Meaning of prediction with special reference to the Copula.
c) Failure of Traditional classification of propositions.

a) Distinction between the Traditional and Modern General propositions.

According to Traditional Logic general propositions are classified in four categories.

These are:
A = Universal affirmative
E = Universal negative
I = Particular affirmative
O = Particular negative

We have already studied them in details in earlier chapters.

General Propositions in modern Logic are similar to those in traditional logic.

‘All mobile phones are electronic gadgets’ is simple proposition. In such
proposition we find the relation of different classes.
In the above proposition the subject term refers to a class of objects ‘mobile
phones’ & the predicate term refers to another class of objects ‘electronic
gadgets’.
So, a general proposition is a proposition which asserts that one class is wholly
or partly included in or excluded from another class.
A general proposition, therefore, makes an assertion about all or about some of
the members of a class.

The method of symbolizing with Quantifiers, seen in chapters above is actually

the method used in Modern Logic, after the concept of symbolizing the
propositions became popular.

b) Meaning of prediction with special reference to the Copula.

Traditional logicians have divided propositions into singular and general. Singular
propositions have a single individual as a subject. This means, in a singular
proposition, the subject is a singular individual thing and predicate is a class of
individuals.
General propositions have a group of individuals as a subject. This means, in a
General proposition, we have a group of individuals as a subject as well as a
group of individuals as a predicate.
The general propositions are of two types, universal and general.
When the general proposition says something about the entire group indicated in
the subject, it is known as a universal proposition.
When the general proposition says something about a part of the group indicated
in the subject, it is known as a particular proposition.
Both singular and general propositions are either affirmative or negative. When
we are told that the subject has the quality indicated in the predicate, the
proposition is said to be affirmative. When we are told that the subject does not
have the quality indicated in the predicate, the proposition is said to be negative.
In case of affirmative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in
the group stated in the predicate is applicable to the individual indicated in the
subject, while in general proposition, it either is applicable to the entire group
indicated by the subject, as in universal propositions, or to a part of the group
indicated by the subject, as in particular propositions.
In case of negative propositions, in singular proposition, the quality indicated in
the group stated in the predicate is not applicable to the individual indicated in
the subject, while in general proposition, it is either not applicable to the entire
group indicated by the subject, as in universal propositions, or not applicable to a
part of the group indicated by the subject, as in particular propositions.
According to this, the general propositions are classified into four categories.
These are:
A = Universal affirmative
E = Universal negative
I = Particular affirmative
O = Particular negative

c) Failure of Traditional classification of propositions.

The problem of multiple generality names a failure in traditional logic to

describe certain intuitively valid inferences. For example, it is intuitively clear that
if:

“Some cat is feared by every mouse”

then it follows logically that:

All mice are afraid of at least one cat

The syntax of traditional logic (TL) permits exactly four sentence types:
"All As are Bs",
"No As are Bs",
"Some As are Bs" and
"Some As are not Bs".

Each type is a quantified sentence containing exactly one quantifier.

Since the sentences above each contain two quantifiers; 'some' and 'every' in the
first sentence and 'all' and 'at least one' in the second sentence, they cannot be
adequately represented in TL.
The best TL can do is to incorporate the second quantifier from each sentence
into the second term, thus rendering the artificial-sounding terms 'feared-by-
every-mouse' and 'afraid-of-at-least-one-cat'. This in effect "buries" these
quantifiers, which are essential to the inference's validity, within the hyphenated
terms.
Hence the sentence "Some cat is feared by every mouse" is allotted the
same logical form as the sentence "Some cat is hungry". And so the logical form
in TL is:

Some As are Bs
All Cs are Ds

which is clearly invalid.

The first logical calculus capable of dealing with such inferences was Gottlob
Frege's Begriffsschrif, the ancestor of modern predicate logic, which dealt with
quantifiers by means of variable bindings.
Modestly, Frege did not argue that his logic was more expressive than extant
logical calculi, but commentators on Frege's logic regard this as one of his key
achievements.
Using modern predicate calculus, we quickly discover that the statement is
ambiguous.

Some cat is feared by every mouse

could mean
Some cat is feared by every mouse, i.e.

For every mouse m, there exists a cat c, such that c is feared by m,

in which case the conclusion is trivial.

But it could also mean Some cat is (feared by every mouse), i.e.

There exists one cat c, such that for every mouse m, c is feared by m.

This example illustrates the importance of specifying the scope of quantifiers

as for all and there exists.

CHAPTER 6. INFERENCE
6. INFERENCE
a) Kinds of inference- Immediate and Mediate.
b) Opposition of proposition- Types of opposition- inference by opposition of
propositions- opposition of Singular propositions.
AN INFERENCE is a mental process by which we pass from one or more
statements to another that is logically related to the former.

a) Kinds of inference –
Inferences are classified on the basis of their scope into Deductive and Inductive.
Deductive Inference have a conclusion that stays within the scope of premises.
Inductive Inferences are the ones that go beyond the scope of the premises.
The Deductive Inferences are of two types, Mediate and Immediate.
Inductive Inferences are of two types, perfect induction and imperfect induction.

Immediate & Mediate

We are studying the Immediate and mediate inferences here.

Based on the number of their premise, inferences are basically classified into two
types, immediate and mediate:

Immediate Inference consists in passing directly from a single premise to a

conclusion. It is reasoning, without the intermediary of a middle term or second
proposition, from one proposition to another which necessarily follows from it.
Ex: No Dalmatians are cats. Therefore, no cats are Dalmatians.
All squares are polygons. Therefore, some polygons are squares.

Mediate Inference consists in deriving a conclusion from two or more logically

interrelated premises. Involving an advance in knowledge, it is reasoning that
involves the intermediary of a middle term or second proposition which warrants
the drawing of a new truth.

Ex: All true Christians are theists.

Paul is a true Christian.
Therefore, Paul is a theist.

Let us see the various types of inferences and their sub classes:

The following outline serves as a guide in understanding the different types of

inference according to various classifications.

I. Induction

A. Perfect Induction
B. Imperfect Induction

II. Deduction

A. Immediate Inference

1. Oppositional Inference
a. Contrary Opposition
b. Contradictory Opposition
c. Subaltern Opposition
d. Subcontrary Opposition

2. Eduction
a. Obversion
b. Conversion
c. Contraposition
d. Inversion
3. Possibility and Actuality

B. Mediate Inference

1. Categorical Syllogism

2. Hypothetical Syllogism
a. Conditional Syllogism
b. Disjunctive Syllogism
c. Conjunctive Syllogism

3. Special Types of Syllogism

a. Enthymeme
b. Epichireme
c. Polysyllogism
d. Sorites
e. Dilemma

b) Opposition of proposition –

Opposition of propositions is the traditional way to classify general propositions

into four types on the basis of their quality and quantity. We have already
discussed this in details in earlier chapters.

Types of opposition –

The opposition relation is of three types.

And we have the oppositions on the basis of

quality = Contrary [ A-E] & sub-contrary [I-O], or

quantity = sub-altern [A-I, E-O] or
both = contradictory [A X O, E X I]

Inference by opposition of proposition –

Opposite or Opposed Propositions Are propositions that cannot

be simultaneously true or that cannot be simultaneously false, or
that cannot be either simultaneously true or simultaneously
false.
This impossibility of being simultaneously true, or false, or either
true or false is the essential note of logical opposition.
Propositions are opposed if they have the same subject and
predicate but differ from one another in quality or quantity, or
both in quality and quantity.
When we draw the opposite of any type as a conclusion on the basis of a
proposition that is known, we have an inference by opposition of proposition.
The truth functional relationship between oppositions can help us know how this
relation can be effective.
Let us see the table of truth and falsity of opposition relations:

Original || Result → A E I O
V

A T/F F/T T/? F/T

E F/? T/F F/T T/?
I ?/F ?/T T/F ?/T
O F/T ?/F ?/T T/F

Using the above table, we can infer the valid conclusions for the inferences
based on the opposition relations of propositions.

Opposition of singular propositions

Singular proposition is the proposition having a singular term as its subject. In the
four fold classification, this is treated as a universal proposition.
But the only difference is that unlike the general propiositions, the singular
propositions do not have subalterns and contradictories. They have only
contraries.
So, when we have an opposition relation of an affirmative singular proposition,
taken as A, we get an E proposition. But we do not have any other variations in it.
Similarly, when we have an opposition relation of a negative singular proposition,
taken as E, we get an A proposition. But we do not have any other variations in it.
This is known as opposition of singular propositions.

CHAPTER 10. DIVISION

10. DIVISION
Logical division - rules and fallacies of division - division by dichotomy.

Logical division:
Logical division is a simple method of dividing a class into its sub-classes in
order to explain the or describe any class. This type of division is useful in
explaining many concepts and making the understanding clear.
Division is useful for;
a] determination of exact relationships among related things,
b] formulation of definitions

When we divide, we use two main criteria. These are, Physical division and
metaphysical division.

Physical division divides a whole into its parts

• e.g., a complex machine into its simple mechanical parts

Metaphysical division divides an entity into its qualities,

• e.g.,a species into its genus & difference

– man into animality & rationality

• a substance into its attributes

– sugar into color, texture, solubility, taste, etc.

• a quality into its dimensions

– sound into pitch, timbre, volume

Understanding Division:

Division is another way to explain any class by talking about its sub-groups and
dividing the class into its sub groups. Here are its basic qualities:

• Logical Division
– begins with a summum genus
– proceeds through intermediate genera
– ends at the infimae species
– NB: It does not continue to individuals

• The results of division should meet these criteria:

1. The subclasses of each class should be coextensive with original class.
2. The subclasses of each class should be mutually exclusive.
3. The subclasses of each class should be jointly exhaustive.
4. Each stage of a division should be based on a single principle.
Kinds of Classification

Classification is the technique of inquiry in which similar individuals and classes

are grouped into larger classes.
e.g., how are steam, diesel, & gasoline engines related to one another?

Natural Classification:
• Natural classification is a scheme that provides theoretical understanding of its
subject matter e.g. classification of living things into monerans, protistans, plants,
fungi and animals
• The concept “monerans” is now obsolescent because it does not provide
sufficient theoretical clarity.

Artificial Classification:
• Artificial classification is a scheme established merely to serve some particular
human purpose e.g. classification of plants as crops, ornamental, and weed

Classification and Division Compared

• The result of a classification will look like the result of a division.

• Classification begins with a individuals or small classes and works
towards a summum genus. It works in the direction opposite to that of division
• Classification begins with a set of apparently related things found in
the world based on experience and builds from there. Hence, it is well-suited to
natural objects. But it will work with any kind of object.

Two Overly Ambitious Ideals

the divisions by a few things can never encounter any fallacy.
In logic as well as in any reasoning, if we are using division to explain something,
we all aim at making divisions that will have no fallacies. In order to have a
perfect flawless division we must divide using one of the following methods.

• Pure division
– begins with the summum genus and
– divides on the basis of a priori considerations
• i.e., it is based on logical possibility, not experience

• Dichotomous division
– divides on the basis of the presence or absence of a particular feature
• Classification can also be dichotomous.
• Striving for these ideals
– works well with mathematical objects,
– does not work well with natural objects
– guarantees a division that meets criteria
– sometimes provides more insight than alternative divisions.
• But “ dichotomous division is often difficult and often impracticable”
• Sometimes, class Rules notification is more practical.
RULES OF DIVISION:

When we are using logical division, we need to follow certain rules. thesde are as
follows:
1. One division must follow only one criteria. It must be either physical or
metaphysical.
2. The division criteria must be mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive.
3. All the parts of an entity being explained must be covered by the division.
4. No extra members must be suggested as parts of the entity explained
during the process of division.

FALLACIES OF DIVISION:

When we fail to follow above rules, we end up in committing following fallacies:

1. Division by cross criteria: When we divide something by using two or

more criteria at the same time, we commit this fallacy. e.g. when we divide
Indians into "Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikh, Rich, poor, Tall, short, Fair, Dark,
introverts and extroverts"; we are committing this fallacy as we are using many
criteria, both of physical as well as metaphysical divisions at the same time. at
the same time.
2. Too narrow division: when we exclude some of the members from the
group or some qualities of the entity being explained, we commit this fallacy. e.g.
Quadrilateral into, square and rectangle. Here we exclude many other types of
quadrilaterals and so the division becomes too narrow as it leaves out many
other members that actually belong to this group.
3. Too wide division: when we include some members that actually do not
belong to the group as we are dividing, our division becomes too wide. e.g. birds
into single coloured & multicolored. Here, many other single coloured and
multicolored things and beings get indicated as part of the group of bird, so it is a
too wide division.

CHAPTER 11. INDUCTION

11. INDUCTION
a) Simple Enumeration as a form of induction.
b) Analogy – characteristic of a good and bad analogy.
c) Use of simple enu,eration and analogy in law – circumstantial evidence.
Induction is a type of inference where we go from known to unknown or from
less general to more general. Here, from the things that are known, we say
something about things that are not known. This is the reason why in induction
we always say something more than what we already know of.
So, Induction, a form of argument in which the premises give grounds for the
conclusion but do not make it certain. Induction is contrasted with deduction, in
which true premises imply a definite conclusion, the conclusion of Induction is
always probable. The probability rate changes as per strength of evidence.
Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the
conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true.
Induction is of two types, perfect and imperfect. Perfect induction takes support
of deduction in later stages to establish a certain conclusion, while imperfect
induction does not do this.

The two types of imperfect induction are, Simple enumeration and Analogy.

a) Simple Enumeration as a form of induction.

Simple enumeration is a method of arriving at a generalization on the basis of
uniform uncontradicted observation of something.
While using this method, we observe a number of instances that agree in some
quality. During our observation, we do not find any contrary instance. So, we
arrive at a conclusion that as far as that thing is concerned, there are no contrary
instances. Then we get a general proposition as a conclusion.
We do not verify our conclusion further or try to analyze the events in order to
find any logical relationship in these common similar events.
This is the reason why even when our observation is wide, it still stays imperfect.
This is because our method is a method of SIMPLE enumeration and not
COMPLETE enumeration. In complete enumeration, since we have observed all
instances from a group about which we are talking, there is no chance of coming
across a contrary instance. But this is not the condition of simple enumeration.
In simple enumeration, conclusion can be disproved by observing just one single
contrary instance. So, wider the observation, greater is the probability of an
inference by simple enumeration.
The conclusion by simple enumeration is highly probable when the number of
observed instances is really high.
But if one is arriving at a conclusion on the basis of very limited observation,
the conclusion is less probable and hence, it is termed as hasty
generalization or illicit generalization.
Many times we find that people arrive at hasty generalizations in determining
some vital things in their daily life.
b) Analogy –
Analogy is a type of imperfect induction where we are comparing two things,
persons, groups or classes. while doing so, we observe some similarities and on
the basis of these, we infer some further similarity, as we find an additional
quality in one of the two compared things, persons, groups or classes.
Many times, we observe or compare two things, events, groups, individuals,
things, etc. etc, observe some similarities, and then, infer some further similarity.
We have no logical reason why we get such a conclusion, but we simply rely on
our observation. This is how analogy works.

Characteristic of a good and bad analogy.

Here, if the observed similarities are relevant to the additional quality, then our
conclusion is likely to be true and we may say that Analogy is good Analogy.
But if the observed qualities are not relevant to the additional quality, then our
conclusion about predicting the additional similarity is not likely to be true, so, we
say that such an analogy is Bad Analogy.

c) Use of Simple Enumeration and Analogy in law:

in circumstantial evidence & getting precedents.

In law, we need to use simple enumeration and Analogy to infer things from
circumstantial evidence. Of them analogy is more useful in legal matters. Also,
while using precedent law, we use analogy to indicate the support of past
decided cases in our matter.
When we see a person following some pattern of behavior or thinking or actions,
while talking of the Modus Operandi of that person, we use simple
enumeration as we talk of the generalized pattern of behavior of that person.
This is the method followed by criminal investigators quite often.
They determine the Modus Operandi of a criminal to find out the criminal and /
or to track the criminals. This is a very common practice used by the police in
registering the crime record of certain criminals while maintaining their files.
While contesting any matter, the lawyers use analogy in arguing about similar
matters, or actions done by an individual in similar situations, to infer about the
truth of the statement given by any witness.
For example, if it is shown that the witness had reacted in a particular way in the
past in similar situations, or has reacted in a particular way in similar situation
created in court, then, one can infer that he must have reacted exactly in same
way when the actual event had happened that the witness was witnessing.
This type of inference adds to the weight-age in argument in court.

Similarly, when we are arguing any matter, we may come across previously
decided matters of same type in the same court, or higher court or another court.
We use the citation of these matters as case law or precedent law to lead the
judge to the conclusion we want, and the procedure of inductive argument that
we use in this type of matter is of analogy. This is why is is said that Analogy is of
great use in legal arguments.