Philosophy

Logic : BAO – 212

3rd Semester

Unit - I
Introduction : Nature of Logic, Propositions, Arguments and their forms,
Deduction and Induction, Truth and Validity.
Categorical Propositions and Classes, Quality, quantity and distribution of
terms, Traditional Square of Opposition, Immediate inference.

Introduction
The term Logic is derived from the Greek word Logos which means
thought or word.
➢ Logic is the study of method and principle used to distinguish
correct from incorrect reasoning.

Nature of Logic :-
. Logic is both traditional and modern in nature
. Traditional and modern logic are inter related
Traditional Logic :-
. Traditional logic is influenced by Aristotle.

Pranav
. The form of logic which is based upon the logical doctrines of Aristotle
is known as Traditional Logic.
. The logician who study the logical doctrines of Aristotle are known as
Traditional logician.
Modern Logic :-
. Modern logic is influenced by the Maths
. The form of logic which is based upon the mathematical doctrines is
known as Modern Logic.
. This form of logic is mainly dominated by the use of symbols so it is
known as symbolic logic.

Sentence and Proposition

Sentence:- It is meaningful arrangement of words and it has a subject,
Predicate and a copula
Ex:- Shops are closed on Sunday.
⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
Subject Copula Predicate
Proposition :- A proposition is the basic building block of logic. It is
defined as a declarative sentence that is either True or False, but not
both.
Categories Of Proposition :-
Tautology : A proposition which is always true
Ex- Cats are mammals.

Pranav
Contradictory: A proposition which is always false
Ex – All men are immortal
Contingent : A proposition which is true in some cases and false in some
cases Ex- It is raining.

Deductive and Inductive Argument

Deductive :- An argument said to be deductive if its conclusion is
claimed to be necessarily follow from its premises.

Pranav
➢ Conclusion is already in the premises
➢ Universal to particular
Ex :- Premises: All plants with rainbow berries are poisonous. This plant
has rainbow berries.
Conclusion: This plant is poisonous.
Inductive :- In Inductive argument , conclusion probably follow from its
premises
➢ Particular to universal
Ex :- Premise: All known fish species in this genus have yellow fins.
Conclusion: Any newly discovered species in the genus is likely to have
yellow fins.
Truth and Validity
An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. In logic,
truth is a property of statements, i.e. premises and conclusions, whereas
validity is a property of the argument itself.
Premise + Conclusion = Argument
True premises and a valid argument guarantee a true conclusion. An
argument which is valid and has true premises is said to be sound
(adjective) or have the property of soundness (noun).
Terms and Distribution of Terms
Term:- A term is a word or group of words which is either subject or a
predicate of a categorical proposition.
❖ There are two terms subject and predicate in each categorical
proposition A, E , I and O.

Pranav
Distribution of Terms:-
□ A term is said to be distributed if it refers to all the members of a class.
For example, in this proposition “All dogs are animals”. The term ‘dog’ is
distributed for a it refers to all the members of the class dog.
□ If a term refers to few members of a class then it is called
Undistributed term. For example, in the proposition “Some students are

intelligent.” The term ‘students' are undistributed for it refers to only

some members of the class student.

Quality :- Quality of a categorical proposition describes whether the

proposition affirms or denies the inclusion of a subject within the class of
the predicate.
➡️ Affirmative
➡️ Negative

Pranav
Quantity :- Quantity of a categorical proposition refers to the number
of members of the subject class that are used in the proposition.
➡️ Universal - All
➡️ Particular - Some

Square Of Opposition
❖ The doctrine of square of opposition originated with Aristotle in the
4th century BC.
❖ It is a diagram in the form of a square in which the four types of
categorical ( A,E ,I and O ) are situated at the corners , exhibiting the
logical relations (called opposition) among these Proposition.

Pranav
➢ There are four types of relationship described by this square of
opposition
• Contradictory relationship
• Contrary relationship
• Subcontrary relationship
• Subalterns relationship

. ‘Every S is P’ and ‘Some S is not P’ are contradictories.

. ‘No S is P’ and ‘Some S is P’ are contradictories.
. ‘Every S is P’ and ‘No S is P’ are contraries.
. ‘Some S is P’ and ‘Some S is not P’ are subcontraries.
. ‘Some S is P’ is a subaltern of ‘Every S is P’.
. ‘Some S is not P’ is a subaltern of ‘No S is P’.

➢ Two propositions are contradictory iff they cannot both be true

and they cannot both be false.

Pranav
➢ Two propositions are contraries iff they cannot both be true but
can both be false.
➢ Two propositions are subcontraries iff they cannot both be false
but can both be true.
➢ A proposition is a subaltern of another iff it must be true if its
superaltern is true, and the superaltern must be false if the
subaltern is false.

Given the truth, or the falsehood, of any one of the four standard-
form categorical propositions, the truth or falsehood of some or all
of the others can be inferred immediately.
• A is given as true: E is false; I is true; O is false.
• E is given as true: A is false; I is false; O is true.
• I is given as true: E is false; A and O are undetermined
• O is given as true: A is false ; E and I are undetermined.
• A is given as false: O is true; E and I are undetermined.
• E is given as false: I is true ; A and O are undetermined.
• I is given as false: A is false ; E is true; O is true.
• O is given as false: A is true; E is false; I is true.

Immediate Inference

➢ Inference is a process of drawing conclusion from certain

premise or premises.
Immediate inference :-An inference that is drawn directly from
one Premise without the Mediation of any other premise.
Mediate inference :- Any inference drawn from more than one
Premise.

Pranav
There are three other important kinds of immediate inference:
Conversion, Obversion, and Contraposition. These are not associated
directly with the square of opposition. Each is explained below:

Conversion
Conversion is an inference that proceeds by interchanging the
subject and predicate terms of a proposition. ”No men are angels”
converts to “No angels are men,” and these propositions may be
validly inferred from one another. Similarly, ”Some women are
writers” and “Some writers are women” are logically equivalent, and
by conversion either can be validly inferred from the other.
Conversion is perfectly valid for all E propositions and for all I
propositions. One standard-form categorical proposition is said to be
the converse of another when we derive it by simply interchanging
the subject and predicate terms of that other proposition. The
proposition from which it is derived is called the convertend. Thus,
”No idealists are politicians” is the converse of ”No politicians are
idealists,” which is its convertend.
The conversion of an O proposition is not valid. The O
proposition, “Some animals are not dogs,” is plainly true; its converse
is the proposition, “Some dogs are not animals,” which is plainly
false. An O proposition and its converse are not logically equivalent.
The A proposition presents a special problem here. Of course, the
converse of an A proposition does not follow from its convertend.
From “All dogs are animals” we certainly may not infer that “All
animals are dogs.” Traditional logic recognized this, of course, but
asserted, nevertheless, that something like conversion was valid for

Pranav
A propositions. On the traditional square of opposition, one could
validly infer from the A proposition, “All dogs are animals,” its
subaltern I proposition, “Some dogs are animals.” The A proposition
says something about all members of the subject class (dogs); the I
proposition makes a more limited claim, about only some of the
members of that class. It was held that one could infer “Some S is P”
from “All S is P.” And, as we saw earlier, an I proposition may be
converted validly; if some dogs are animals, then some animals are
dogs.
So, if we are given the A proposition, “All dogs are animals,” we
first infer that “Some dogs are animals” by subalternation, and from
that subaltern we can by conversion validly infer that “Some animals
are dogs.” Hence, by a combination of subalternation and
conversion, we advance validly from “All S is P” to”Some P is S.” This
pattern of inference, called conversion by limitation (or conversion
per accidens), proceeds by interchanging subject and predicate
terms and changing the quantity of the proposition from universal to
particular.
In all conversions, the converse of a given proposition contains
exactly the same subject and predicate terms as the convertend,
their order being reversed, and always has the same quality (of
affirmation or denial). A complete picture of this immediate
inference as traditionally understood is given by the following table:

Pranav
Obversion
Obversion is an immediate inference that is easy to explain once
the concept of a term complement is understood. To obvert a
proposition, we change its quality(affirmative to negative or negative
to affirmative) and replace the predicate term with its complement.
However, the subject term remains unchanged, and so does the
quantity of the proposition being obverted. For example, the A
proposition, “All residents are voters,” has as its obverse the E
proposition, ”No residents are non voters.” These two are logically
equivalent propositions, and either may be validly inferred from the
other.
Obversion is a valid immediate inference when applied to any
standard-form categorical proposition:
• The E proposition, “No umpires are partisans,” has as its
obverse the logically equivalent A proposition, “All umpires are
non partisans.”
• The I proposition, “Some metals are conductors,” has as its
obverse the O proposition, ”Some metals are non conductors.”

Pranav
• The O proposition, “Some nations were not belligerents,” has
as its obverse The I proposition, ”Some nations were non
belligerents.”
The proposition serving as premise for the obversion is called the
obvertend ; the conclusion of the inference is called the obverse.
Every standard-form categorical proposition is logically equivalent to
its obverse, so obversion is a valid form of immediate inference for
all standard-form categorical propositions. To obtain the obverse of
any proposition, we leave the quantity (universal or particular)and
the subject term unchanged; we change the quality of the
proposition and replace the predicate term with its complement.
The following table gives a complete picture of all valid obversions:

Contraposition
Another type of immediate inference, contraposition, can be reduced to
the first two, conversion and obversion. To form the contrapositive of a
given proposition, we replace its subject term with the complement of
its predicate term, and we replace its predicate term with the
complement of its subject term. Neither the quality nor the quantity of

Pranav
the original Proposition is changed , so the contrapositive of the of an A
proposition is an A proposition, the contrapositive of an O proposition is
an O proposition, and so forth.
For example, the contrapositive of the A proposition, “All members
are voters,” is the A proposition, “All nonvoters are nonmembers.” These
are logically equivalent propositions, as will be evident on reflection.
Contraposition is plainly a valid form of immediate inference when
applied to A propositions. It really introduces nothing new, because we
can get from any A proposition to its contrapositive by first obverting it,
next applying conversion, and then applying obversion again. Beginning
with “All S is P,” we obvert it to obtain “No S is non-P,” which converts
validly to “No non-P is S,” whose obverse is “All non-P is non-S.” The
contrapositive of any A proposition is the obverse of the converse of the
obverse of that proposition.
Contraposition is a valid form of immediate inference when applied to O
propositions also, although its conclusion may be awkward to express.
The contrapositive of the O proposition, “Some students are not
idealists,” is the somewhat cumbersome O proposition, “Some
nonidealists are not nonstudents,” which is logically equivalent to its
premise. This also can be shown to be the outcome of first obverting,
then converting, then obverting again. “Some S is not P” obverts to
“Some S is non-P,” which converts to “Some non-P is S,” which obverts to
“Some non-P is not non-S.”
For I propositions, however, contraposition is not a valid form of
inference The true I proposition,”Some citizens are nonlegislators,” has
as its contrapositive the false proposition,”Some legislators are
noncitizens.” The reason for this invalidity becomes evident when we try
to derive the contrapositive of the I proposition by successively

Pranav
obverting, converting, and obverting. The obverse of the original I
proposition, “Some S is P,” is the O proposition, “Some S is not non-P,”
but (as we saw earlier) the converse of an O proposition does not follow
validly from it.
In the case of E propositions, the contrapositive does not follow validly
from the original, as can be seen when, if we begin with the true
proposition,”No wrestlers are weaklings,” we get, as its contrapositive,
the obviously false propo sition, “No nonweaklings are nonwrestlers.”
The reason for this invalidity we will see, again, if we attempt to derive it
by successive obversion, conversion,and obversion. If we begin with the
E proposition,”No S is P,” and obvert it, we obtain the A proposition, “All S
is non-P”-which in general cannot be validly converted except by
limitation. If we do then convert it by limitation to obtain”Some non-P is
S,” we can obvert this to obtain “Some non-P is not non-S.” This outcome
we may call the contrapositive by limitation-and this too we will consider
further in the next section.
Contraposition by limitation, in which we infer an O proposition from an
E proposition (for example, we infer”Some non-P is not non-S” from “No
S is P”),has the same peculiarity as conversion by limitation, on which it
depends. Because a particular proposition is inferred from a universal
proposition, the resulting contrapositive cannot have the same meaning
and cannot be logically equivalent to the proposition that was the
original premise. On the other hand, the contrapositive of an A
proposition is an A proposition, and the contrapositive of an O
proposition is an O proposition, and in each of these cases the
contrapositive and the premise from which it is derived are equivalent.
Contraposition is thus seen to be valid only when applied to A and
O propositions. It is not valid at all for I propositions, and it is valid for E

Pranav
propositions only by limitation. The complete picture is exhibited in the
following table:

Kindly share your review with us....

Pranav
Thank You….

Pranav