Chapter 5 :- Categorical Propositions

• Deductive argument:- An argument whose

Premises are claimed to Provide conclusive Grounds
for the truth of Its conclusion.
• Validity:- A characteristic of any Deductive argument
Whose premises, if they Were all true, would Provide
conclusive Grounds for the truth of Its conclusion.
Such an Argument is said to be Valid.
• Classical or Aristotelian logic:- The traditional
account of Syllogistic reasoning, in Which certain
Interpretations of Categorical propositions Are
presupposed.
• Modern or modern Symbolic logic:- The account of
Syllogistic reasoning Accepted today. It differs In
important ways from The traditional account.
• Class:- The collection of all Objects that have some
Specified characteristic In common.
Categorical Proposition :- A proposition that can
Be analyzed as being About classes, or Categories,
affirming or Denying that one class, S, is included in
some Other class, P, in whole Or in part.
Standard-form categorical proposition :- Any
categorical proposition of the form “All S is P” (universal
affirmative), “No S is P” (universal negative), “Some S is
P” (particular affirmative), or “Some S is not P”
(particular negative). Respectively, these four types are
known as A, E, I, and O . FOUR Kinds of CP (
1,2,3,4 )
Venn Diagram :- Venn diagram Iconic representation of
a categorical proposition or of an argument, used to
display their logical forms by means of overlapping
circles.
Four kinds of Categorical Propositions:-
(1) Universal affirmative propositions:- ( All S is P ) In
these we assert that the whole of one class is included
or contained in another class. “All politicians are liars”
is an example; It is denoted by A . Any universal
affirmative proposition can be written All S is P. “ S” is
distributed but “ P” is not distributed .
(2) Universal negative propositions:- The second type
is, "No politicians are liars," is a proposition in which it
is denied, universally, that any member of the class of
politicians is a member of the class of liars. It can be
written as No S is P. where again S and P represent the
subject and predicate terms. This kind of proposition
denies the relation of inclusion between the two terms,
and denies it universally. It is denoted E . ( NO S is P )
(3)Particular affirmative propositions:- may be
written schematically as which says that at least one
member of the class designated by the subject term S
is also a member of the class designated by the
predicate Some S is P. The third example "Some
politicians are liars," affirms that some members of the
class of all politicians are members of the class of all
liars. But it does not affirm this of politicians
universally. Only some particular politician or
politicians are said to be liars. It is denoted by I. ( Some
S is P ) .
(4) Particular negative propositions :- It is written
schematically as Some S is not P. which says that at
least one member of the class designated by the
subject term S is excluded from the whole of the class
designated by the predicate term P. The denial is not
universal. Propositions in this standard form are called
particular negative propositions. They are also called O
propositions. ( Some S is not P ) .
Quality :- An attribute of every categorical
proposition, determined by whether the proposition
affirms or denies class inclusion. Thus every
categorical proposition is either universal in quality or
particular in quality.
1. Quantity:- An attribute of every categorical
proposition, determined by whether the proposition
refers to all members or only to some members of the
class designated by its subject term. Thus every
categorical proposition is either universal in quantity
or particular in quantity.
2. Copula :- Any form of the verb “to be” that serves to
connect the subject term and the predicate term of a
categorical proposition.
3. Distribution:- An attribute that describes the
relationship between a categorical proposition and
each one of its terms, indicating whether or not the
proposition makes a statement about every member
of the class represented by a given term.
Traditional Square of Opposition:- Opposition :-
The logical relation that exists between two
contradictories, between two contraries, or in general
between any two categorical propositions that differ in
quantity, quality, or other respects. These relations are
displayed on the square of opposition.
(A)Contradictories:- Two propositions so related that
one is the denial or negation of the other. On the
traditional square of opposition, the two pairs of
contradictories are indicated by the diagonals of the
square: A and E propositions are the contradictories of
O and I, respectively.
(B) Contraries :- Two propositions so related that they
cannot both be true, although Both may be false.
• Contingent:- Being neither tautologous nor self
contradictory. A contingent statement may be true or
false.
( C ) Subcontraries:- Two
propositions so related
that they cannot both be
false, although they may
both be true.
( D) Subalternation:- The
relation on the square of opposition between a
universal proposition (an A or an E proposition) and its
corresponding particular proposition (an I or an O
proposition, respectively). In this relation, the
particular proposition (I or O) is called the “subaltern,”
and the universal proposition (A or E) is called the
“superaltern.”.
( E ) Square of opposition :- A diagram in the form of a
square in which the four types of categorical
propositions (A, E, I, and O) are situated at the corners,
exhibiting the logical relations (called “oppositions”)
among these propositions.
Immediate inference :- An inference that is drawn
directly from one premise without the mediation of any
other premise. Various kinds of immediate inferences
may be distinguished, traditionally including
conversion, obversion, and contraposition.
• Mediate inference:- Any inference drawn from more
than one premise.
Kinds / Further immediate
inferences :- ( A ) Conversion :-
A valid form of immediate
inference for some but not all
types of propositions. To form the
converse of a proposition the
subject and predicate terms are
simply interchanged. Thus,
applied to the proposition “No
circles are squares,” conversion
yields “No squares are circles,”
which is called the “converse” of
the original proposition. The original proposition is
called the “convertend.” ( B ) Obversion :- A valid form
of immediate inference for every standard-form
categorical proposition. To obvert a proposition, we
change its quality (from affirmative to negative, or from
negative to affirmative) and replace the predicate term
with its complement. Thus, applied to the proposition
“All dogs are mammals,” obversion yields “No dogs are
nonmammals,” which is called the “obverse” of the
original proposition. The original proposition is called
the “obvertend.”.
( C ) Contraposition :- A valid form of immediate
inference for some, but not for all types of propositions.
To form the contrapositive of a given proposition, its
subject term is replaced by the complement of its
predicate term, and its predicate term is replaced by
the complement of its subject term. Thus the
contrapositive of the proposition “All humans are
mammals” is the proposition “All nonmammals are
nonhumans.” ( D ) Complement, or complementary
class :- The collection of all things that do not belong
to a given class. Boolean
interpretation:- The modern interpretation of
categorical propositions, adopted in this chapter and
named after the English logician George Boole. In the
Boolean interpretation, often contrasted with the
Aristotelian interpretation, universal propositions (A
and E propositions) do not have existential import.
Existential import:- An attribute of those propositions
that normally assert the existence of objects of some
specified kind. Particular propositions (I and O
propositions) always have existential import; thus the
proposition “Some dogs are obedient” asserts that
there are dogs. Whether universal propositions (A and
E propositions) have existential import is an issue on
which the Aristotelian and Boolean interpretations of
propositions differ. Existential fallacy:- Any mistake in
reasoning that arises from assuming illegitimately that
some class has members.
Chapter 6. Categorical Syllogisms
• Syllogism :- Any deductive argument in which a
conclusion is inferred from two premises.
• Categorical syllogism:- A deductive argument
consisting of three categorical propositions that
contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in
exactly two of the propositions.
Standard form:- The form in which a syllogism is said
to be when its premises and conclusion are all
standard-form categorical propositions (A, E, I, or O)
and are arranged in standard order (major premise,
then minor premise, then conclusion). Three types
of standard form :- ( A ) TERMS OF THE Syllogism:-
Major , Minor ,and Middle;- Major term:- The term
that occurs as the predicate term of the conclusion in a
standard-form categorical syllogism. Minor term:-
The term that occurs as the subject term of the
conclusion in a standard-form categorical
syllogism. Middle term:- In a standard-form
Categorical syllogism (which must contain Exactly
three terms), the Term that appears in Both premises
but does Not appear in the Conclusion. Minor
premise:- In a standard-form categorical syllogism, the
premise that contains the minor term. Major
premise:- In a standard-form Categorical syllogism,
The premise that Contains the major term. (B) Mood :-
A characterization of Categorical syllogisms,
Determined by the forms Of the standard-form
Categorical propositions it Contains. Since there are
Just four forms of Propositions, A, E, I, and O, and each
syllogism Contains exactly three Such propositions,
there Are exactly 64 moods, Each mood identified by
The three letters of its Constituent propositions, AAA,
AAI, AAE, and so On, to OOO. ( C) Figure :- The position
of the Middle term in the Premises of a standard Form
categorical Syllogism. Four—possible different
figures: 1. The middle term may be the subject term of
the major premise and the Predicate term of the minor
premise; or ( M – P & S – M & S - P ) 2. The middle
term may be the predicate term of both premises; or ( P
- M & S – M & S – P ) 3. The middle term may be the
subject term of both premises; or ( M – P & M – S & S –
P ) 4. The middle term may be the predicate term of the
major premise and The subject term of the minor
premise. ( P – M & M – S & S – P ) . 6.2 The Formal
Nature of Syllogistic Argument:- In deductive logic,
the goal is to discriminate valid arguments from invalid
ones. In classical logic, this involves identifying valid
syllogisms. The propositions in a syllogism are
assumed to be contingent, meaning they are neither
necessarily true nor necessarily false. The validity of a
syllogism depends entirely on its form, not its content.
For example, the syllogism form AAA–1
( 1. All M is P. , 2. All S is M. , 3. Therefore, All S is P.
This form is valid regardless of the specific terms
used. For instance: - All Greeks are humans. - All
Athenians are Greeks. - Therefore, all Athenians are
humans. Another example: - All sodium salts are
water-soluble substances. - All soaps are sodium salts.
- Therefore, all soaps are water-soluble substances.
6.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies:-
Rule 1. A standard-form categorical syllogism must
contain exactly three terms, each of which is used in
the same sense throughout the argument. Violation:
Fallacy of four terms.(1) Fallacy of four terms:- The
formal fallacy that is committed when a syllogism is
constructed with more than three terms. Rule 2. In
a valid standard-form categorical syllogism, the middle
term must be distributed in at least one premise.
Violation: Fallacy of undistributed middle.( All Russians
were revolutionists. All anarchists were revolutionists. ,
Therefore, all anarchists were Russians) (2) Fallacy of
the undistributed middle:- The formal fallacy that is
committed when the middle term of an syllogism is not
distributed in at least one premise. Rule 3. In a valid
standard-form categorical syllogism, if either term is
distributed in the conclusion, then it must be
distributed in the premises. Violation: Fallacy of the
illicit major, or fallacy of the illicit minor. (3)Fallacy of
illicit process:- The formal fallacy that is committed
when a term that is distributed in the conclusion is not
distributed in the corresponding premise. Rule 4.
No standard-form categorical syllogism having two
negative premises is valid. Violation: Fallacy of
exclusive premises. (4) Fallacy of exclusive premises
:- The formal fallacy that is committed when both
premises in a syllogism are negative propositions (E or
O). Rule 5. If either premise of a valid standard-form
categorical syllogism is negative, the conclusion must
be negative. Violation: Fallacy of drawing an affirmative
conclusion from a negative premise.(No poets are
accountants., Some artists are poets. ,Therefore some
artists are accountants.) Rule 6. No valid standard-
form categorical syllogism with a particular conclusion
can have two universal premises. Violation: Existential
fallacy.(6) Existential fallacy :- The formal fallacy that
is committed when, in a standard-form categorical
syllogism, a particular conclusion is inferred from two
universal premises.
• Major Premise: The first proposition, containing the
major term (P) and the middle term (M).
• Minor Premise: The second proposition, containing
the minor term (S) and the middle term (M).
6.5 Exposition of The Fifteen Valid Forms of the
Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism:-
Figure 1: The middle term (M) is the subject in the
major premise and the predicate in the minor
premise.(M-P, S-M, S-P). (1) Barbara (AAA): A
syllogism where both premises and the conclusion are
universal affirmatives. Structure: All M are P; All S are
M; Therefore, All S are P. (2) Celarent (EAE) : A syllogism
with a universal negative major premise, a universal
affirmative minor premise, and a universal negative
conclusion. No M are P; All S are M; Therefore, No S are
P. (3) Darii (AII) : A syllogism with a universal affirmative
major premise, a particular affirmative minor premise,
and a particular affirmative conclusion. Structure: All M
are P; Some S are M; Therefore, Some S are P. (4) Ferio
(EIO) : A syllogism with a universal negative major
premise, a particular affirmative minor premise, and a
particular negative conclusion. No M are P; Some S are
M; Therefore, Some S are not P. Figure 2: .(P-M, S-
M, S-P)
(5) Camestres (AEE): A syllogism with a universal
affirmative major premise, a universal negative minor
premise, and a universal negative conclusion. All P are
M; No S are M; Therefore, No S are P. (6) Cesare (EAE) :
A syllogism with a universal negative major premise, a
universal affirmative minor premise, and a universal
negative conclusion. No P are M; All S are M; Therefore,
No S are P. (7) Baroko (AOO) : A syllogism with a
universal affirmative major premise, a particular
negative minor premise, and a particular negative
conclusion. All P are M; Some S are not M; Therefore,
Some S are not P. (8) Festino (EIO) : A syllogism with a
universal negative major premise, a particular
affirmative minor premise, and a particular negative
conclusion. No P are M; Some S are M; Therefore,
Some S are not P. Figure 3: The middle term (M) is
the subject in both premises.(M-P, M-S, S-P). (9)
Datisi (AII) : A syllogism with a universal affirmative
major premise, a particular affirmative minor premise,
and a particular affirmative conclusion. All M are P;
Some M are S; Therefore, Some S are P. (10) Disamis
(IAI) : A syllogism with a particular affirmative major
premise, a universal affirmative minor premise, and a
particular affirmative conclusion. Some M are P; All M
are S; Therefore, Some S are P. (11) Ferison (EIO) : A
syllogism with a universal negative major premise, a
particular affirmative minor premise, and a particular
negative conclusion. No M are P; Some M are S;
Therefore, Some S are not P. (12) Bokardo (OAO) : A
syllogism with a particular negative major premise, a
universal affirmative minor premise, and a particular
negative conclusion. Some M are not P; All M are S;
Therefore, Some S are not P. Figure 4: (P-M, M-S, S-
P). (13) Camenes (AEE): A syllogism with a universal
affirmative major premise and universal negative minor
premise, leading to a universal negative conclusion. All
P are M; No M are S; Therefore, No S are P. (14) Dimaris
( IAI ): A syllogism with a particular affirmative major
premise and universal affirmative minor premise,
leading to a particular affirmative conclusion. Some P
are M; All M are S; Therefore, Some S are P. (15)
Fresison (EIO): A syllogism with a universal negative
major premise & particular affirmative minor premise
leading to a particular negative conclusion. No P are M;
Some M are S; Therefore, Some S are not P.
. Appendix: Deduction of the Fifteen Valid Forms
of the Categorical Syllogism
Case 1: If the syllogism has an A conclusion, there is
only one possibly valid form: AAA-1-Barbara. Case 2: If
the syllogism has an E conclusion, there are only four
possibly valid forms: Camestres, Camenes, Celarent,
and Cesare, respectively, Case 3: If the syllogism has
an I conclusion, there are only four possibly valid forms:
Darii, Datisi, Disamis, and Dimaris, respectively Case
4: If the syllogism has an O conclusion, there are only
six possibly valid forms: Baroko, Ferio, Festino,
Ferison, Fresison, and Bokardo.
6.3 Venn Diagrams Technique for testing
syllogisms :- (1) Draw Three Intersecting Circles:
Label the circles for the three terms in the syllogism:
#Circle M for the Middle term # Circle P for the Major
term (predicate of the conclusion) # Circle S for the
Minor term (subject of the conclusion) (2) Represent
the Premises: Shade or mark the areas in the diagram
according to the premises. Universal Affirmative (A):
“All M are P” means shading the part of circle M that
does not overlap with circle P. Universal Negative €:
“No M are P” means shading the entire overlap
between circles M and P. Particular Affirmative (I):
“Some M are P” means marking an ‘x’ in the overlap
between circles M and P. Particular Negative (O):
“Some M are not P” means marking an ‘x’ in the part of
circle M that does not overlap with circle P. (3) Check
for the Conclusion: After representing both premises
in the diagram, check if the conclusion naturally
follows. Represent the conclusion in the diagram to see
if it is already depicted by the premises.
Chapter 7 :- Syllogisms in ordinary Language
• Syllogistic argument :- Any argument that either is a
standard-form categorical syllogism or can be
 reformulated as a standard-form categorical
syllogism without any change of meaning.
• Reduction to standard form :- The translation of
syllogistic arguments in any form into the standard
form in which they can be tested for validity; also
called translation to standa forrn.
7.2 Reducing the number of terms to Three :- The
process of reformulating a syllogistc argument as a
standard-form categorical syllogism is called
Translation to reduction of the number of terms to
three.
(1) Eliminating Synonyms: Definition: A synonym of a
term is not a fourth term but another way of referring to
one of the three classes. Example:- Original: No
wealthy persons are vagrants. All lawyers are rich
people. Therefore no attorneys are tramps. Reduced:
No wealthy persons are vagrants. All lawyers are
wealthy persons. Therefore no lawyers are vagrants.
Valid (EAE–1, Celarent).(2) Eliminating Class
Complements: Definition: Class complements can be
reduced by obverting the conclusion or premises.
Example: Original: All mammals are warm-blooded
animals. No lizards are warm-blooded animals.
Therefore all lizards are nonmammals. Reduced: All
mammals are warm-blooded animals. No lizards are
warm-blooded animals. Therefore no lizards are
mammals. Valid (AEE–2, Camestres). Alternative
Reduction: Contrapositive and obversion: All
non(warm-blooded animals) are nonmammals. All
lizards are non(warm-blooded animals). Therefore all
lizards are nonmammals. Valid (AAA–1, Barbara). (3)
Complex Example with Six Terms: Example:
Original: No nonresidents are citizens. All noncitizens
are nonvoters. Therefore all voters are residents.
Reduced: Convert and obvert first premise: All citizens
are residents. Contrapositive of second premise: All
voters are citizens. Result: All citizens are residents. All
voters are citizens. Therefore all voters are residents.
Valid (AAA–1, Barbara).
7.3 Translating Categorical Propositions Into
Standard Form :-
(1) Singular Propositions:- Def :- (A proposition
that Asserts that a particular Individual has (or does
Not have) some Specified attribute.). Singular
propositions affirm or deny that a specific individual or
object belongs to a class (e.g., “Socrates is a
philosopher”). Translate them into standard form as
unit classes: - Affirmative: “s is P” becomes “All S is P.”
Negative: “s is not P” becomes “No S is P.” Singular
propositions contain more information and should be
treated as conjunctions: - Affirmative: “All S is P” and
“Some S is P.” - Negative: “No S is P” and “Some S is not
P.” (2) Adjectives as Predicates:- Propositions with
adjectives or adjectival phrases as predicates, e.g.,
“Some flowers are beautiful,” are translated by
replacing the adjectival predicate with a term
designating the class of things having that attribute,
e.g., “Some flowers are beautiful things.” (3) Non-
Standard Copula:- Propositions where the main verbs
are not the standard-form copula “to be,” e.g., “All
people seek recognition,” are translated by converting
the verb phrase into a class-defining characteristic,
e.g., “All people are seekers of recognition.” (4) Non-
Standard Order:- Propositions where standard-form
ingredients are present but not in order, e.g.,
“Racehorses are all thoroughbreds,” are rearranged to
express standard-form categorical propositions, e.g.,
“All racehorses are thoroughbreds.” (5) Non-
Standard Quantifiers:- Propositions with non-
standard quantifiers, e.g., “Every dog has its day,” are
translated into standard form by interpreting the
quantifiers correctly, e.g., “All dogs are creatures that
have their days.” (6) Exclusive Propositions:-
Propositions that assert That the predicate Applies
exclusively to the Subject named. Propositions
involving “only” or “none but,” e.g., “Only citizens can
vote,” are translated by reversing the subject and
predicate and replacing “only” with “all,” e.g., “All those
who can vote are citizens.” (7) No Indicated
Quantity:- Propositions without indicated quantity,
e.g., “Dogs are carnivorous,” are translated based on
context to express the intended meaning, e.g., “All dogs
are carnivores.” (8) Non-Standard Form:-
Propositions that do not resemble standard-form
categorical propositions, e.g., “Not all children believe
in Santa Claus,” are translated into logically equivalent
standard-form propositions, e.g., “Some children are
not believers in Santa Claus.” (9) Exceptive
Propositions:- A proposition that asserts that all
members of some class, with the exception of the
members of one of Its subclasses, are members of
some other class. Exceptive propositions are in reality
compound, because they assert both a relation of class
inclusion, and a relation of class exclusion. Example:
“All persons except employees are eligible” is an
exceptive proposition in which it is asserted both that
“All nonemployees are, eligible” and that “No
employees are eligible.”

7.6 Sorites :- An argument whose Conclusion is

inferred From its premises by a Chain of syllogistic
Inferences in which the Conclusion of each Inference
serves as a Premise for the next, And the conclusion of
The last syllogism is the Conclusion of the entire
Argument. Example: Starting with premises about
diplomats, government officials, and people in public
life, the conclusion about tactful individuals is reached
through two syllogisms.
7.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogisms:-
Disjunctive Syllogism:- A syllogism in which one of the
premises is a disjunction, the other premise is the
denial or the contradictory of one of the two disjuncts
in the first premise, and the conclusion is the statement
that the other disjunct in that first premise is true.
(1) Pure hypothetical syllogism:- A syllogism that
contains only hypothetical propositions.(2) Mixed
hypothetical syllogism:- A syllogism that contains one
conditional (or hypothetical) premise, and one
categorical premise. (3) Modus ponens:- A mixed
hypothetical syllogism in which the first premise is a
conditional proposition, the second premise affirms
the antecedent of that conditional, and the conclusion
affirms the consequent of that conditional. (4) Fallacy
of affirming the consequent:- A fallacy in which, from
the truth of the consequent of a conditional
proposition, the conclusion is reached that the
antecedent of that conditional is true. (5) Modus
tollens:- A mixed hypothetical syllogism in which the
first premise is a conditional proposition, the second
premise is the denial of the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion is the denial of the
antecedent of that conditional. (6) Fallacy of denying
the antecedent:- A fallacy in which, from the negation
of the antecedent of a conditional proposition, the
conclusion is reached that the -consequent of that
conditional is false.
Principal Kinds of Syllogisms:- (1) Categorical
syllogisms:- which contain only categorical
propositions affirming or denying the inclusion or
exclusion of categories. Example: All M is P. , All S is M.
, Therefore all S is P. (2) Disjunctive syllogisms:- which
contain a compound, disjunctive (or alternative)
premise asserting the truth of at least one of two
alternatives, and a premise that asserts the falsity of
one of those alternatives. Example: Either P is true or O
is true. , P is not true, Therefore Q is true. (3).
Hypothetical syllogisms:- which contain one or more
compound, hypothetical (or conditional) propositions,
each affirming that if one of its components (the
antecedent) is true then the other of its components
(the consequent) is true. Two subtypes are
distinguished:- (A) Pure hypothetical syllogisms:-
contain conditional propositions only. Example: If P is
true, then Q is true. , If Q is true, then A ls true ,
Therefore it is true, then R is true. (B) Mixed
hypothetical syllogisms :- contain both a conditional
premise and a categorical premise.
If the categorical premise affirms the truth of the
antecedent of the conditional premise, and the
consequent of that conditional premise is the
conclusion of the argument, the form is valid and is
called modus ponens. Example: if P is true, then Q is
true. , P is true. , Therefore Q is true,
If the categorical premise affirms the falsity of the
consequent of the conditional premise, and the falsity
of the antecedent of that conditional premise is the
conclusion of the argument, the form is valid and is
called modus Tollens. Example: P is true, then Q is true,
Q is false , Therefore P is false
7.8 The Dilemma:- Dilemma:- A common form of
argument in ordinary discourse in which it is claimed
that a choice must be made between two alternatives,
both of which are (usually) bad. (1) Complex
dilemma:- An argument consisting of (a) a disjunction,
(b) two conditional premises linked by a conjunction,
and (c) a conclusion that is not a single categorical
proposition (as in a simple dilemma) but a disjunction,
a pair of (usually undesirable) alternatives. (2) Simple
dilemma:- An argument designed to push the
adversary to choose between two alternatives, the
(usually undesirable) conclusion in either case being a
single categorical proposition.

Simple statement:- A statement that does Not

contain any other Statement as a Component.
Compound statement:- A statement that Contains
two or more Statements as Components.
Component:- A part of a compound Statement that is
itself a Statement, and is of Such a nature that, if
Replaced in the larger Statement by any other
Statement, the result will Be meaningful. (A)
Conjunction:- A truth-functional Connective meaning
“and,” symbolized by The dot, •. A statement Of the
form p • q is true If and only if p is true And q is true.
Conjunct:- Each one of The component Statements
connected in A conjunctive statement . Dot :- The
symbol for Conjunction, •, meaning “and.” . Truth
value:- The status Of any statement as true Or false (T
or F). Truth-functional Component:- Any component
of a Compound statement Whose replacement There
by any other Statement having the Same truth value
would Leave the truth value of The compound
Statement unchanged. Truth-functional Compound
statement:- A compound statement Whose truth
value is Determined wholly by The truth values of its
Components. Truth-function connective :- Any logical
Connective (e.g., Conjunction, disjunction, Material
implication and Material equivalence) Between the
Components of a truth- Functionally compound
Statement. Truth table:- An array on Which all possible
truth Values of compound Statements are Displayed,
through the Display of all possible Combinations of the
Truth values of their Simple components. A Truth table
may be used To define truth-functional Connectives; it
may also Be used to test the Validity of many Deductive
arguments. (B) Negation:- Denial; symbolized by
The tilde or curl. – P Simply means “it is not The case
that p,” and May be read as “not-p.” Curl or tilde:- The
symbol for negation,. It appears Immediately before (to
The left of) what is Negated or denied. (C)
Disjunction:- A truth-functional Connective meaning
“or”; components so Connected are called Disjuncts.
There are two Types of disjunction: Inclusive and
exclusive. Inclusive disjunction:- A truth-functional
Connective between two Components called
Disjuncts. A compound Statement asserting Inclusive
disjunction is True when at least one of The disjuncts
(that is, One or both) is true. Normally called simply
“disjunction,” it is also Called “weak disjunction” And is
symbolized by the Wedge, . Exclusive disjunction Or
strong disjunction :- A logical relation Meaning “or”
that may Connect two component Statements. A
Compound statement Asserting exclusive Disjunction
says that at Least one of the Disjuncts is true and that
At least one of the Disjuncts is false. It is Contrasted
with an “inclusive” (or “weak”) Disjunction, which says
That at least one of the Disjuncts is true and that They
may both be true. Wedge: The symbol for weak
(inclusive) disjunction, . Any statement of the Form p q
is true if p is True, or if q is true, or if Both p and q are
true. (D) Punctuation:- The parentheses, Brackets,
and braces Used in mathematics And logic to eliminate
Ambiguity.
8.3 Conditional Statements and
Material implication :-
Conditional statement /
implication/ Hypothetical :- A
hypothetical Statement; a compound Proposition or
statement Of the form “If p then q.” Antecedent:- In a
conditional Statement (“If … then …”), the Component
that Immediately follows the “if.” Sometimes called The
implicans or the Protasis. Consequent:- In a
conditional Statement (“If … then …”), the Component
that Immediately follows the “then.” Sometimes Called
the implicate, or The apodosis.
Types of implication / Conditional Statements /
Uses of If – Then :- (1) Logical : If all humans are
mortal and Socrates is a human, then Socrates is
mortal. (2) Definitional : If Leslie is a bachelor, then
Leslie is unmarried. (3) Causal : If blue litmus paper is
placed in acid, then it will turn red. (4) Decisional : If
State loses the homecoming game, then I’ll eat my hat.
Implication:- The relation that holds Between the
antecedent And the consequent of a True conditional
or Hypothetical statement. Horseshoe:- The symbol
for material Implication. Material implication:- A
truth-functional Relation (symbolized by The
horseshoe,) that May connect two Statements. The
Statement “p materially Implies q” is true when Either p
is false, or q is True.
Refutation by logical analogy :- A method that
shows the invalidity of an argument by presenting
another argument that has the same form, but whose
premises are known to be true and whose conclusion is
known to be false. Variable or statement variable:- A
place-holder; a letter (by convention, any of the lower
case letters, beginning with p, q, etc.) for which a
statement may be substituted. Argument form:- An
array of symbols exhibiting logical structure; it contains
no statements but it contains statement variables.
These variables are arranged in such a way that when
statements are consistently substituted for the
statement variables, the result is an argument.
Substitution Instarice:- Any argument that results
from the substitution of statements for the statement
variables of a given argument form. Specific form:-
When referring to a given argument, the argument form
from which the argument results when a different
simple statement is substituted consistently for each
different statement variable in that form. Invalid :- Not
valid, characterizing a deductive argument that fails to
provide conclusive grounds for the truth of its
conclusion. Every deductive argument is either valid or
invalid. Valid:- A deductive argument is said to be valid
when its premises, if they were all true, would provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
Validity is a formal characteristic, it applies only to
arguments, as distinguished from truth. Which applies
to propositions.
Three Laws of Thought :- (1) Principle of identity:-
The principle that asserts that if any statement is true
then it is true. (2) Principle of noncontradiction:- The
principle that asserts that no statement can be both
true and false. (3) Principle of excluded middle:- The
principle that asserts that any statement is either true
or false.