Introduction to Logic

Dr. Arvind Jaiswal

Lecture Notes for Week-1

Contents
1 Nature of Logic 2
1.1 Preliminary Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 General Understanding of the term ‘Reasoning’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Correct Reasoning vs. Incorrect Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Role of Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Importance of Logic in Human Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.6 Prerequisite of Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.7 Non-essential factors associated with reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.8 Language-Logic Relation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.9 Reasoning as a Function of Human Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Basic Concepts 5
2.1 Nature of Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Statement/Proposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1 Statement & Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2 Compound Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3.3 Embedded Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Conclusion & Premise/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5 Recognizing Premises and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Enthymeme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.7 Argument and Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1
3 Exercise 11
3.1 Identifying premise/s and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1 Nature of Logic
1.1 Preliminary Definition
Nature of Logic
What is Logic?
Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish correct from
incorrect reasoning.1

1.2 General Understanding of the term ‘Reasoning’

General Understanding of the term ‘Reasoning’
Some commonly known examples of reasoning—
• 50 men can drill 40 holes in 30 days. Then, how long will 25 men take to drill
20 holes?
• If 6 March 2005 is Monday then what was the day of the week on 6th March
2004?
• If “HOUSE” is coded as 35842, and LEMON is coded as 12659, then what
would be the code for HELEN?
• A > D because, A > B, B > C, and C > D.
By reasoning, we generally understand either of the following two—
• Detecting a pattern in a given set of information and extending that pattern.
E.g., 2,4,6,8,10,?
• Detecting hidden/implicit information in the given data and making it explicit.
E.g., A=B and B=C, therefore A=C.
The above two, if done directly, are called “inference” or “drawing conclusion.” We
can also reverse the process and “offer reason/s” for a conclusion/belief. Although,
these processes differ in their direction, there is no difference in the process as such,
and the former process is presupposed in the latter.
1
Copi, Irving M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition: p. 2.

2
1.3 Correct Reasoning vs. Incorrect Reasoning
Correct Reasoning vs. Incorrect Reasoning
As reasoning is a process or an act, it has both the possibilities: it can be per-
formed correctly or incorrectly.
An example of correct reasoning
All four-legged creatures have wings. All spiders have exactly four legs. Therefore,
all spiders have wings.

An example of incorrect reasoning

If I owned all the gold in my country, then I would be wealthy. But, I do not own
all the gold in my country. Therefore, I am not wealthy.

1.4 Role of Logic

Role of Logic

• To discover the criteria / the principles / the rules that govern the correct
process of reasoning.

• To apply these principles to distinguish incorrect from the correct reasoning.

1.5 Importance of Logic in Human Life

Importance of Logic in Human Life
Ubiquity of Reasoning in Human Life
• The term ‘human’ is defined as “rational animal.”

• ‘Rational animal’ signifies the animal who uses Reason/intellect.

• Using the faculty called Reason is nothing but “reasoning.”

Thus, the ubiquity (universal presence) of reasoning in human life is obvious. All
human performances presuppose the performance of the act of reasoning.
The Biggest Risk of Human Life Using the instrument/tool, that we are
essentially equipped with, namely Reason, without knowing how to use it correctly.
Here, logic, plays its role and thus it becomes so greatly important for humans to
study that no other discipline can generally be. And, if one learns or does anything
without learning proper use of Reason, they are always at the highest risk of going
wrong and endanger themselves as well as their fellow beings.

3
1.6 Prerequisite of Reasoning
Prerequisite of Reasoning
What is the prerequisite to do reasoning?
You must have some information in advance, so that you could look for a pattern or
for hidden information in it.

1.7 Non-essential factors associated with reasoning

Non-essential factors associated with reasoning
What does not matter about the pre-information needed for reasoning?
• Its Language: it can be in Hindi, English or other ordinary languages, can
be in mathematical language, in pictorial language or else.

• Its Source: sense-experience, innate ideas, axioms, or else.

• Its domain or discipline: Sciences, Arts, Commerce, Social Sciences or else.

1.8 Language-Logic Relation

Language-Logic Relation

• Language is inevitable for logic, for we put information in a language.

• Logic is language-neutral in that any of inter-translatable languages will do.

1.9 Reasoning as a Function of Human Mind

Reasoning as a Function of Human Mind
Three functions of human mind are as follows:
• apprehending

• judging

• reasoning
Products of these functions are expressed as:
• Words/Terms/Symbols

4
 • Statements/Propositions

• Arguments
Internal counterparts of these expressed products are —
• Ideas/concepts

• Judgments

• Inference
As reasoning is the highest of all the three functions of human mind, so it requires
good deal of clarity on part of the previous two.

2 Basic Concepts
2.1 Nature of Argument
Argument
Logic is mainly concerned with arguments.
Arguement-with & Arguement-for
Even when we argue with someone, we argue with someone for some conclusion/proposition.

What is an “argument”?
“Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others, which
are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one.”2
Some examples—
• All animals are mortal. Socrates is an animal. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

• Rishi is outside the house. Because, either Rishi can be in the house or outside
it, and we can see that Rishi is not in the house.

• If Hobbes is not the author of Leviathan, then Brahmasūtra is not written by

Bādarāyaṇa. But, Brahmasūtra is actually written by Bādarāyaṇa. Therefore,
Hobbes is the author of Leviathan.

• No men are born idiot. All logicians are men. Therefore, no logicians are born
idiot.
2
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 6.

5
 Some more examples—

• All letters are numbers. A is a letter. Therefore, A is a number.

• If Malviya ji is the founder of B.H.U., then 2 + 2 = 5. It’s a fact that Malviya

ji is the founder of B.H.U.. Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5.

• All blacks are white, because all blacks are intelligent persons, and all intelligent
persons are white.

What can’t be an argument?

• A set of unconnected statements.

– The moon orbits the Earth. Bananas are berries. The Eiffel Tower was
almost demolished. Penguins have knees. The Great Wall of China is not
visible from space.

• A set of connected, but not in the specified way, statements.

– All men are mortal, and all logicians are men. Also, all logicians are
mortal.
– “Most of the spectators went home after half time. The home team was
so dominant, that the game had become boring.”

• Any single simple statement.

– If Ram is taller than Shyam, and Shyam is taller than Hari; then, Ram is
taller than Hari. (Argument, but not a simple statement.)

2.2 Inference
Inference
Inference “A process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the
basis of some other proposition or propositions.”3
3
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 5.

6
2.3 Statement/Proposition
Statement/Proposition
Builiding blocks of our reasoning. Statement “A proposition; what is typically

asserted by a declarative sentence, but not the sentence itself. Every statement must
be either true or false, although the truth or falsity of a given statement may be
unknown.”4
Statements or non-statements?

• There are mountains on the other side of the moon. (Truth value not yet
known.)

• A triangle has four sides. (false)

2.3.1 Statement & Sentence

Statement & Sentence

• The grammatical forms of language are essentially four:

– Declarative— The door is open.

– Interrogative— Is the door open?
– Imperative— Open the door!
– Exclamatory— Oh my gosh! The door open again!

When used sincerely, only the first asserts a statement.

• All statements are asserted by some or other sentences, but it is not the case
that all sentences assert some statement. For instance, genuine questions,
commands, and exclamations make no assertion.

• Sentences are always parts of some language, but propositions are not tied to
English or to any given language.

– It is raining. (English)
– Está lloviendo. (Spanish)
4
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 4.

7
 – Il pleut. (French)
– Es regnet. (German)

• Even the very same sentence can assert different propositions in different con-
texts or at different times. E.g.,

– The prime minister of India hails from Gujarat. (The proposition it as-
serts at one time can be true, and at another time can be false.)

2.3.2 Compound Propositions

Compound Propositions
Compound propositions are propositions which have two or more simple or
compound statements as their components.
Some compound statements assert its component statements as well, but others
do not. E.g.,

• Conjunctive propositions assert all of its components simultaneously.

– “The Amazon Basin produces roughly 20 percent of the Earth’s oxygen,

creates much of its own rainfall, and harbours many unknown species.”

• Disjunctive (alternative) propositions and hypothetical (conditional) proposi-

tions do not assert its components.

– “Logical skill is useful or it is not useful.”

– The eighteenth-century freethinker, Voltaire, said, “If God did not exist,
it would be necessary to invent him.”

2.3.3 Embedded Propositions

Embedded Propositions
Proposition/s not connected externally by connectives but embedded in another
proposition/s. E.g.

• John believes that Rohan killed Harry.

• Deepak announced John’s belief that Rohan killed Harry.

Non-embedded propositions

8
 • It is the case that John killed Harry.

• It is a fact that John killed Harry.

• It is true that John Killed Harry.

If an embedding-embedded structure exhibits no truth-value difference, then that is
not an embedded proposition.

2.4 Conclusion & Premise/s

Conclusion & Premise/s
Conclusion— “In any argument, the proposition to which the other propositions
in the argument are claimed to give support, or for which they are given as reasons.”5
Premises— “In an argument, the propositions upon which inference is based;
the propositions that are claimed to provide grounds or reasons for the conclusion.”6
Keep in mind!
• ‘Premise’ and ‘conclusion’ are relative terms.

• In natural languages, their order is not fixed. A conclusion can occur before,
after or in the middle of the premises.

– The Food and Drug Administration should stop all cigarette sales imme-
diately. After all, cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable
death.

2.5 Recognizing Premises and Conclusion

Recognizing Premises and Conclusion

• Indicators

– Conclusion Indicators therefore, for these reasons, hence, it follows

that, so I conclude that, accordingly, which shows that, in consequence,
which means that, consequently, which entails that, proves that, which
implies that, as a result, which allows us to infer that, for this reason,
which points to the conclusion that, thus, we may infer, etc.
5
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 6.
6
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 6.

9
 – Premise Indicators since, as indicated by, because, the reason is that,
for, for the reason that, as, may be inferred from, follows from, may be
derived from, as shown by, may be deduced from, inasmuch as, in view of
the fact that, etc.

• Context

– No indicators— “The institution of public education thrives on its own

failures. The more poorly its charges perform, the more money it asks for
(and gets) from the public and the government. The more money it gets,
the more it can grow itself.”7
– Propositions not in declarative form— “If a right to euthanasia is
grounded in self-determination, it cannot reasonably be limited to the
terminally ill. If people have a right to die, why must they wait until they
are actually dying before they are permitted to exercise that right?”
– Unstated propositions.

2.6 Enthymeme
Enthymeme
“An argument that is stated incompletely, the unstated part of it being taken for
granted.”8
E.g.,
• Human cloning—like abortion, contraception, pornography and euthanasia—is intrinsically
evil and thus should never be allowed. Unstated premise— “what is intrinsically evil should
never be allowed.”
• “Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty.”9 What is the unstated
proposition in the above? .............

2.7 Argument and Explanation

Argument and Explanation
In a group of propositions of the structure “α, therefore β” or “θ, because γ,”
the presence of indicators like “therefore” and “because” does not guarantee that the
group in question is an argument, it can be an explanation as well.
7
Ian Hamet, “School for Scandal,” The Weekly Standard, 23 August 1999
8
Copi, I. M., Introduction to Logic, 14th International Edition, p. 17.
9
Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Legislation (1802)

10
Explanation
Explanation is given of an established fact. Whereas, in arguments, premises estab-
lish the conclusion.

Distinguishing arguments from explanations

• Sometimes we need to know the intention of the author.

• Sometimes we need to be sensitive to the context.

• Sometimes a passage deserves alternative, equally plausible readings.

Is the following an argument or an explanation?

Humans have varying skin colors as a consequence of the distance our

ancestors lived from the Equator. It’s all about sun. Skin color is what
regulates our body’s reaction to the sun and its rays. Dark skin evolved to
protect the body from excessive sun rays. Light skin evolved when people
migrated away from the Equator and needed to make vitamin D in their
skin. To do that they had to lose pigment. Repeatedly over history, many
people moved dark to light and light to dark. That shows that color is
not a permanent trait. —Nina Jablonski, “The Story of Skin,” The New York Times, 9 January 200710

3 Exercise
3.1 Identifying premise/s and conclusion
Exercise-1: Identifying premise/s and conclusion

• Some nondrinkers are athletes, because no drinkers are persons in perfect physical
condition, and some people in perfect physical condition are not nonathletes.

• All mortals are imperfect beings, and no humans are immortals, whence it follows
that all perfect beings are nonhumans.

• Some politicians are power-hungry people, so some participants in student govern-

ment are not politicians, since all participants in student government are power-
hungry people.

• No enthymemes are complete, so this argument is incomplete.

10
Excerpted from Copi’s Introduction to Logic, 14th Edition, Pearson

11
• All proposals in the green folder were rejected, and all of our proposals were in the
green folder.

• Chris never studies. Chris probably won’t do well in his logic class.

12