PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC

COURSE OUTLINE
 Nature and Basic Principles of Logic
 The meaning of Logic
 Subject matter of Logic and its components Arguments
 Distinguishing Non-Arguments from Arguments
 Types of Arguments
 Standards of Test for Arguments Logical
 Form and Formal Validity
 Categorical Propositions
 Meaning and Structure of Categorical Propositions
 Reduction of Ordinary Language Expressions into Standard
Form
 Class Interpretation of Categorical Propositions
NATURE AND BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC
Nature refers to the physical and material world around us. The
basic principles of logic are universal principles that are used to
analyze and understand various aspects of nature, including the
relationships between objects, the patterns that exist in nature,
and the processes that take place.

The basic principles of logic include things like the principle of

identity, which states that something is what it is, the principle
of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot both be
and not be at the same time and in the same respect, and the
principle of excluded middle, which states that something must
either be or not be in a given respect, with no middle ground.

These principles are used to create logical arguments, drawing

connections between different aspects of nature and making
sense of the world around us. For example, scientists use logic
to analyze observational data and draw conclusions about the
patterns and processes that exist in nature. Philosophers use
logic to explore the nature of existence, knowledge, and reality.
Overall, the basic principles of logic are fundamental to
understanding nature and making sense of the physical world
around us. They are used in various fields of study, including
science, philosophy, and mathematics to help us better
understand the universe and our place within it.

Here are some examples of how the principles of logic can be

applied in nature:

- Principle of Identity: For example, a tree is a tree. This

principle helps us to identify objects and classify them according
to their nature.

- Principle of Non-Contradiction: For example, a bird cannot be

both flying and not flying at the same time and in the same
respect. This principle helps us to avoid logical contradictions
and inconsistencies in our thinking.

- Principle of Excluded Middle: For example, either it is raining

or it is not raining. This principle helps us to determine the truth
value of a statement and make logical deductions based on that
determination.
- Logical argument: For example, if an apple falls from a tree, it
will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 m\/s2 due to gravity. This logical
argument is based on the principles of causality and uniformity
and helps us to understand the natural processes that govern the
movement of objects in the physical world.

Overall, the principles of logic provide a framework for

analyzing cause-and-effect relationships, identifying patterns
and regularities, and drawing conclusions based on evidence and
observation. These principles are used in various fields of study
to help us better understand nature and the world around us.

WHAT IS LOGIC
In simple terms, logic is the process of using rational thinking to
analyze ideas and arguments. It is an important part of various
academic disciplines and is considered a subfield of philosophy.
Logic deals with consistent, systematic, and logical reasoning,
and it helps in evaluating evidence, analyzing arguments,
explaining ideas, and connecting evidence to arguments. In
classical antiquity, logic, along with grammar and rhetoric,
constituted the core liberal arts and were considered essential for
a free person to know to take an active part in civic life. To
summarize, logic is a fundamental part of acquiring and
processing knowledge intelligibly and is indispensable for
various academic disciplines.
An example of logic in philosophy is;

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: All men are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is an example of a syllogism, a type of deductive argument

that uses two premises to arrive at a conclusion. The argument is
considered valid because if the premises are true, then the
conclusion necessarily follows.

In this case, the first premise is a general statement about all

men, while the second premise is a specific statement about
Socrates. By combining these two premises, we can logically
conclude that Socrates must be mortal. This argument is often
attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, as an example
of deductive reasoning.
 SUBJECT MATTER OF LOGIC AND ITS
COMPONENTS
Logic is the study of reasoning and argumentation. It is
concerned with identifying and evaluating the structure of
arguments in order to determine whether they are valid or sound.
The subject matter of logic includes a range of topics, such as
propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, and many
others.

One of the main components of logic is arguments. In logic, an

argument refers to a set of statements that are used to persuade
or convince someone of a certain viewpoint or position. It is not
the same thing as a quarrel or a verbal dispute, as the goal of an
argument is to offer good reasons in support of a position that all
parties can accept. An argument involves constructing a chain of
reasoning that leads to a conclusion, with each statement in the
argument providing evidence or justification for the conclusion.

It's important to distinguish an argument from a debate, which is

a series of arguments usually about a single topic or set of
related topics. A debate may be a formal event, such as a
presidential debate, or an informal discussion among friends.
While a debate always involves argumentation, an argument
itself does not necessarily involve a debate. In summary, an
argument is a logical set of statements used to persuade or
convince someone of a certain viewpoint or position, while a
debate is a series of arguments about a specific topic
or set of topics.

Arguments can be either deductive or inductive. Deductive

arguments are those in which the conclusion necessarily follows
from the premises. If the premises are true, then the conclusion
must be true as well. For example, the syllogism "All men are
mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal" is a
deductive argument.

Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are those in which the

conclusion is likely to be true based on the evidence provided by
the premises. Inductive arguments are not necessarily
conclusive, but they are still useful in making predictions and
drawing conclusions about the world around us. For example,
"Every time I have eaten strawberries, I have had an allergic
reaction. Therefore, I am likely to have an allergic reaction if I
eat strawberries again" is an inductive argument.

In summary, arguments are a key component of logic, and they

can be either deductive or inductive. The study of logic helps us
to identify and evaluate arguments, and to determine whether
they are valid and sound.
 PREMICES AND CONCLUSIONS
Premises:
- Premises are statements that provide evidence or
reasons in support of a conclusion.
- They are typically presented before the conclusion in
an argument or logical reasoning.
Example:
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Here, the premises provide evidence to support the

conclusion that Socrates is mortal. The premise "All men
are mortal" establishes a general rule, while the premise
"Socrates is a man" applies that rule to a specific case.

Conclusions:
- Conclusions are the judgments or inferences made based
on the premises.
- They are usually presented at the end of an argument or
logical reasoning.
Example:
Premise: Every bird I have ever seen has wings.
Conclusion: Therefore, all birds have wings.

In this example, the premise provides evidence for the

conclusion that all birds have wings. The conclusion is
inferred based on the observation of birds with wings in
the various cases.

To summarize, premises provide evidence or reasons, and

conclusions are the judgments or inferences made based
on those premises.

IDENTIFICATION OF PREMICES AND

CONCLUSION
Identifying the premises and conclusions in an argument
or logical reasoning can sometimes be tricky, but there are
a few key steps you can take:

1. Look for indicator words: Certain words, such as

'because', 'since', 'therefore', and 'thus', can signal the
presence of a premise or conclusion.
2. Analyze the structure: Typically, premises precede
conclusions in an argument, but there may be multiple
premises or conclusions within a larger argument. Look
for sentences or phrases that appear to provide evidence
or reasons, or that draw a judgment or inference.

3. Determine the direction of the argument: Are the

statements building up to a conclusion, or do they provide
evidence in support of a premise?

4. Consider the meaning: In general, premises provide

support or establish a fact, while conclusions draw a
judgment or inference from that support.

Here is an example to help you practice:

Premise: All humans are mortal.

Premise: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the words 'therefore' and 'must' are
indicators of a conclusion. We can see that the last
sentence is the conclusion that "Socrates is mortal". The
first two sentences are premises that provide evidence to
support this conclusion.
Further example
Since most people who exercise regularly have good
health, and walking is a form of exercise, it follows that
walking is good for overall health."

In this sentence, the indicator word "since" suggests that

there is a premise coming up. The sentence has two
premises:

- Premise 1: Most people who exercise regularly have

good health.
- Premise 2: Walking is a form of exercise.

The conclusion is:

- Conclusion: Walking is good for overall health.

The sentence provides support for the conclusion based
on the two premises.

A sentence can have multiple premises, but typically a

sentence should only have one main premise, which is the
central idea or argument of the sentence. The main
premise should be clear and concise, and all other
information presented in the sentence should support or
relate back to the main premise. Similar to premises, a
sentence can have multiple conclusions if it contains
supporting ideas. However, a sentence should only have
one main conclusion, which is the point or final decision
drawn from the premises presented in the sentence. A
well-constructed sentence will have a clear and logically
consistent conclusion that ties back to its main premise.
Here's an example of a sentence with multiple premises:

"If you exercise daily, eat a healthy diet and get enough
sleep, you can improve your overall health and reduce
your risk of developing chronic conditions."

This sentence contains three premises:

1. If you exercise daily
2. If you eat a healthy diet
3. If you get enough sleep

All three premises combine to support the conclusion that

if you follow these healthy habits, you can improve your
overall health and reduce your risk of developing chronic
conditions.

Here's an example of a sentence with multiple

conclusions:

"The company needs to improve its customer service,

reduce its costs, and increase its marketing efforts in order
to remain competitive."
This sentence contains three conclusions:

1. The company needs to improve its customer service.

2. It needs to reduce its costs.
3. It needs to increase its marketing efforts.
All three conclusions are supported by a single premise,
which is that the company needs to remain competitive.

It is possible for a sentence, particularly those that are

descriptive or narrative in nature, to not have a clear
premise or conclusion. In such cases, the sentence may
simply provide information or describe a setting or event,
without necessarily presenting a central argument or
decision. In this context, identifiers such as subjects and
predicates may still be present in the sentence but may not
necessarily lead to a clearly defined
premise or conclusion.

Here's an example of a sentence without a clear premise

or conclusion identifier:

"The sun was setting over the ocean, casting a warm glow
across the sky."
This sentence is descriptive in nature and simply provides
information about the setting and the action taking place
in it. While it does contain a subject and a predicate, it
does not have a clear central argument or decision that
can be identified as a premise or conclusion identifier.

EXERCISE

(I) Identify the premise (is), (ii) the conclusion, and (iii)
the premises (es) identifier and/or conclusion identifier in
each of the following arguments.
1. The orchestrated war against corruption by the
Obasanjo administration is a colossal failure, because the
revelations arising from the sale of NITEL and the
refineries clearly show that Mr. President himself was
wantonly corrupt; he only used the Economic and
Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) to harass and
intimidate his perceived political enemies.
2. God is a rational impossibility, so theologians and
apologetics who try to prove God‘s existence end up with
psychologically and emotionally persuasive arguments.

3. Malaria attack involves a loss of appetite because

oftentimes appetite for patients infected with malaria
parasites usually drop noticeably some days before
malaria is actually diagnosed.

4. Since the law of averages dictates that only 10% of

students are absent due to illness, and more than 10% are
absent, it follows that some students absent today are
unprepared for this quiz.

5. No one has directly observed a chemical bond, so

scientists who try to envision such bonds must rely on
experimental clues and their own imaginations.

6. Since chick embryos support human-cell growth and

can be monitored through a window cut into their shells,
they are frequently used for studying cancers
that grow in people.
ANSWERS
1. Premises:
a) The orchestrated war against corruption by the Obasanjo
administration is a colossal failure

b) The revelations arising from the sale of NITEL and the

refineries clearly show that Mr. President himself was
wantonly corrupt

c) He only used the Economic and Financial Crime

Commission (EFCC) to harass and intimidate his perceived
political enemies

d) Conclusion:
The Obasanjo administration's war against corruption is a
failure because the president himself was corrupt and used the
EFCC to target political enemies.

e) Premise identifier:
“because”

f) Conclusion identifier:
“N/A”
2. Premisses:
a) God is a rational impossibility.
b) Theologians and apologetics try to prove God's existence.

c) Conclusion:
They end up with psychologically and emotionally
persuasive arguments.

d) Premisse identifier: "God is a rational impossibility"

e) Conclusion identifier: "They end up with psychologically

and emotionally persuasive arguments."

3. Premises:
a) Malaria attack involves a loss of appetite because

b) Appetite for patients infected with malaria parasites usually

drop noticeably some days before malaria is actually
diagnosed.

c) Conclusion:
Therefore, loss of appetite is a symptom of malaria attack.
 d) Premise identifier: "because"
e) Conclusion identifier: "Therefore"

4. Premises:
a) The law of averages dictates that only 10% of students are
absent due to illness.

b) More than 10% of students are absent.

c) Conclusion:
Some students absent today are unprepared for this quiz.

d) Premise identifiers:
"The law of averages dictates that"

e) Conclusion identifier:
"It follows that"

5. Premises:
a) No one has directly observed a chemical bond.

b) Scientists who try to envision such bonds must rely on

experimental clues and their own imaginations.
 c) Conclusion: Scientists who try to envision chemical bonds
must rely on experimental clues and their own imaginations
because no one has directly observed a chemical bond.

d) Premise identifier: “No one has directly observed a

chemical bond” “so”

e) Conclusion identifier: "so scientists who try to envision

such bonds must rely on experimental clues and their own
imaginations."

6. Premises:
a) Chick embryos support human-cell growth.

b) Chick embryos can be monitored through a window cut

into their shells.

b) Conclusion:
Chick embryos are frequently used for studying cancers that
grow in people.

c) Premise identifier: "Since"

 d) Conclusion identifier: "they are frequently used for
studying cancers that grow in people"

DISTINGUISHING NON-ARGUMENTS
FROM ARGUMENTS
A non-argument is a statement that does not propose to provide
any evidence or support for a claim. It may express an opinion,
an emotion, a command, a question, or a report of information,
but it does not attempt to persuade the listener or reader of the
truth of a position.

Examples of non-arguments include:

- "I don't like cucumbers."

- "Congratulations on your promotion!"
- "What time is it?"
- "The movie starts at 7 pm."

An argument, on the other hand, is a set of claims or premises

that offer reasons or evidence to support a conclusion. The
premises are intended to establish the truth of the conclusion,
and the strength of the argument depends on the strength of the
premises.

Examples of arguments include:

- "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is

mortal."
- "The Earth is round because satellite images show a curved
horizon. Therefore, the flat Earth theory is false."
- "Animal testing is unethical. It causes unnecessary suffering to
animals, and there are alternative methods available. Therefore,
we should ban animal testing."

TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
There are several types of arguments that can be made,
including:

1. Deductive arguments: These are arguments that aim to

provide logical certainty for the conclusion based on the
premises given. Deductive arguments use general principles to
make conclusions that logically follow.
2. Inductive arguments: These arguments involve conclusions
that follow probability rather than certainty. Inductive arguments
provide evidence to support a conclusion but don't guarantee it.
Inductive arguments are based on specific observations that lead
to a general conclusion.

3. Abductive arguments: These arguments involve drawing the

best possible conclusion based on incomplete information.
These arguments may not have a definitive conclusion and are
often used in scientific or research-based studies.

4. Analogical arguments: These arguments rely on comparisons

between different situations or scenarios to draw conclusions
about one of them.

5. Causal arguments: These arguments aim to establish a cause-

and-effect relationship between two events or phenomena. These
arguments often use empirical data to provide evidence for the
claim.

6. Moral arguments: These arguments are based on moral

principles or values, such as ethical beliefs or societal norms.
These arguments aim to persuade others to accept a moral
principle as truth.
STANDARD OF TESTS FOR ARGUEMENT