- 1

SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

CHAPTER 1
PROPOSITIONS

1.1 What Logic Is

Logic
The study of the methods and principles used to distinguish
correct from incorrect reasoning

1.2 Propositions

Propositions
An assertion that something is (or is not) the case
All propositions are either true or false
May be affirmed or denied

Statement
The meaning of a declarative sentence at a particular time
In logic, the word statement is sometimes used instead of
propositions

Simple Proposition
A proposition making only one assertion.

Compound Proposition
A proposition containing two or more simple propositions

Disjunctive (or Alternative) Proposition
A type of compound proposition
If true, at least one of the component propositions must be
true

Hypothetical (or Conditional) Proposition
A type of compound proposition;
It is false only when the antecedent is true and the
consequent is false

1.3 Arguments

Inference
A process of linking propositions by affirming one proposition
on the basis of one or more other propositions.

Argument
A structured group of propositions, reflecting an inference.

Premise
A proposition used in an argument to support some other
proposition.

Conclusion
The proposition in an argument that the other propositions,
the premises, support.

1.4 Deductive & Inductive Arguments

Deductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion conclusively
One of the two classes of argument

Inductive Argument
Claims to support its conclusion only with some degree of
probability
One of the two classes of argument

Valid Argument
If all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
(applies only to deductive arguments)

Invalid Argument
The conclusion is not necessarily true, even if all the premises
are true
(applies only to deductive arguments)


Classical Logic
Traditional techniques, based on Aristotles works, for the
analysis of deductive arguments.

Modern Symbolic Logic
Methods used by most modern logicians to analyze
deductive arguments.

Probability
The likelihood that some conclusion (of an inductive
argument) is true.

1.5 Validity & Truth

Truth
An attribute of a proposition that asserts what really is the
case.

Sound
An argument that is valid and has only true premises.

Relations Between Truth and Validity:
1. Some valid arguments contain only true propositions true
premises and a true conclusion.
2. Some valid arguments contain only false propositions
false premises and a false conclusion
3. Some invalid arguments contain only true propositions all
their premises are true, and their conclusions as well.
4. Some invalid arguments contain only true premises and
have a false conclusion.
5. Some valid arguments have false premises and a true
conclusion.
6. Some invalid arguments also have a false premise and a
true conclusion.
7. Some invalid arguments, of course, contain all false
propositions false premises and a false conclusion.

Notes:
The truth or falsity of an arguments conclusion does not by
itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument.
The fact that an argument is valid does not guarantee the
truth of its conclusion.
If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may
be certain that its conclusion is true also.
If an argument is valid and its conclusion is false, not all of
its premises can be true.
Some perfectly valid arguments do have a false conclusion
but such argument must have at least one false premise.


CHAPTER 3
LANGUAGE AND ITS APPLICATION

3.1 Three Basic Functions of Language

Ludwig Wittgenstein
One of the most influential philosophers of the 20
th
century
Rightly insisted that there are countless different kinds of
uses of what we call symbols, words, sentences.

Informative Discourse
Language used to convey information
Information includes false as well as true propositions,
bad arguments as well as good ones
Records of astronomical investigations, historical accounts,
reports of geographical trivia our learning about the world
and our reasoning about it uses language in the
informative mode

Expressive Discourse
Language used to convey or evoke feelings.
Pertains not to facts, but to revealing and eliciting attitudes,
emotions and feelings
E.g. sorrow, passion, enthusiasm, lyric poetry
Expressive discourse is used either to:
- 2


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
1. manifest the speakers feelings
2. evoke certain feelings in the listeners
Expressive discourse is neither true nor false.

Directive Discourse
Language used to cause or prevent action.
Directive discourse is neither true nor false.
Commands and requests do have other attributes
reasonableness, propriety that are somewhat analogous to
truth & falsity

3.2 Discourse Serving Multiple Functions

Notes:
Effective communication often demands combinations of
functions.
Actions usually involve both what the actor wants and what
the actor believes.
Wants and beliefs are special kinds of what we have been
calling attitudes.
Our success in causing others to act as we wish is likely to
depend upon our ability to evoke in them the appropriate
attitudes, and perhaps also provide information that affects
their relevant beliefs.

Ceremonial Use of Language
A mix of language functions (usually expressive and
directive) with special social uses.
E.g. greetings in social gatherings, rituals in houses of
worship, the portentous language of state documents

Performative Utterance
A special form of speech that simultaneously reports on, and
performs some function.
Performative verbs perform their functions only when tied in
special ways to the circumstances in which they are uttered,
doing something more than combining the 3 major functions
of language

3.3 Language Forms and Language Functions

Sentences
The units of language that express complete thoughts
4 categories: declarative, interrogative, imperative,
exclamatory
4 functions: asserting, questioning, commanding, exclaiming

USES OF LANGUAGE
Principal Uses
1. Informative
2. Expressive
3. Directive
Grammatical Forms
1. Declarative
2. Interrogative
3. Imperative
4. Exclamatory
Linguistic forms do not determine linguistic function. Form
often gives an indication of function but there is no sure connection
between the grammatical form and the use/uses intended. Language
serving any one of the 3 principal functions may take any one of the 4
grammatical forms

3.4 Emotive and Neutral Language

Emotive Language
Appropriate in poetry
Language that is emotionally toned will distract
Language that is loaded heavily charged w/ emotional
meaning on either side is unlikely to advance the quest for
truth

Neutral Language
The logician, seeking to evaluate arguments, will honor the
use of neutral language.
3.5 Agreement & Disagreement in Attitude & Belief

Dis/agreement in Belief vs. Dis/agreement in Attitude

Parties in Potential Conflict May:
1. agree about the facts, and agree in their attitude towards
those facts
2. they might disagree about both
3. they may agree about the facts but disagree in their
attitude towards those facts
4. they may disagree about what the facts are, and yet they
agree in their attitude toward what they believe the fats to
be.

Note: The real nature of disagreements must be identified if they are
to be successfully resolved.

CHAPTER 4
DEFINITION

4.1 Disputes and Definitions

Three Kinds of Disputes

1. Obviously genuine disputes
there is no ambiguity present and the disputers do
disagree, either in attitude or belief
2. Merely verbal disputes
there is ambiguity present but there is no genuine
disagreement at all
3. Apparently verbal disputes that are really genuine
there is ambiguity present and the disputers
disagree, either in attitude or belief

Criterial Dispute
a form of genuine dispute that at first appears to be merely
verbal

4.2 Definitions and Their Uses

Definiendum
a symbol being defined

Definiens
the symbol (or group of symbols) that has the same
meaning as the definiendum

Five Kinds of Definitions and their Principal Use

1. Stipulative Definitions
a. A proposal to arbitrarily assign meaning to a newly
introduced symbol
b. a meaning is assigned to some symbol
c. not a report
d. cannot be true or false
e. it is a proposal, resolution, request or instruction
to use the definiendum to mean what is meant by
the definiens
f. used to eliminate ambiguity

2. Lexical Definitions
a. A report which may be true or false of the
meaning of a definiendum already has in actual
language use
b. used to eliminate ambiguity

3. Precising Definitions
a. A report on existing language usage, with
additional stipulations provided to reduce
vagueness
b. Go beyond ordinary usage in such a way as to
eliminate troublesome uncertainty regarding
borderline cases
c. Its definiendum has an existing meaning, but that
meaning is vague
d. What is added to achieve precision is a matter of
stipulation
e. Used chiefly to reduce vagueness

- 3


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Ambiguity: Uncertainty because a word or phrase has more
meaning than one

Vagueness: lack of clarity regarding the borders of a
terms meaning

4. Theoretical Definitions
a. An account of term that is helpful for general
understanding or in scientific practice
b. Seek to formulate a theoretically adequate or
scientifically useful description of the objects to
which the term applies
c. Used to advance theoretical understanding

5. Persuasive Definitions
a. A definition intended to influence attitudes or stir
the emotions, using language expressively rather
than informatively
b. used to influence conduct

4.3 Extensions, Intension, & the Structure of Definition

Extension (Denotation)
the collection of objects to which a general term is correctly
applied

Intension (Connotation)
the attributes shared by all objects, and only those objects to
which a general term applies

4.4 Extension and Denotative Definitions

Extensional/Denotative Definitions
a definition based on the terms extension
this type of definition is usually flawed because it is most
often impossible to enumerate all the objects in a general
class

1. Definitions by example
We list or give examples of the objects denoted by
the term

2. Ostensive definitions
a demonstrative definition
a term is defined by pointing at an object
We point to or indicate by gesture the extension of
the term being defined

3. Quasi-ostensive Definitions
A denotative definition that uses a gesture and a
descriptive phrase
The gesture or pointing is accompanied by some
descriptive phase whose meaning is taken as being
known

4.5 Intension and Intensional Definitions

Subjective Intension
What the speaker believes is the intension
The private interpretation of a term at a particular time

Objective Intension
The total set of attributes shared by all the objects in the
words extension

Conventional Intension
The commonly accepted intension of a term
The public meaning that permits and facilitates
communication

Intensional Definitions

1. Synonymous definitions
a. Defining a word with another word that has the
same meaning and is already understood
b. We provide another word, whose meaning is
already understood, that has the same meaning as
the word being defined

2. Operational definitions
a. Defining a term by limiting its use to situations
where certain actions or operations lead to
specified results
b. State that the term is correctly applied to a given
case if and only if the performance of specified
operations in the case yields a specified result

3. Definitions by genus and difference
a. Defining a term by identifying the larger class (the
genus) of which it is a member, and the
distinguishing attributes (the difference) that
characterize it specifically
b. We first name the genus of which the species
designation by the definiendum is a subclass, and
then name the attribute (or specific difference)
that distinguishes the members of that species
from members of all other species in that genus

4.6 Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference

1. A definition should state the essential attributes of the
species
2. a definition must not be circular
3. a definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow
4. a definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure,
or figurative language
5. a definition should not be negative where it can be
affirmative

Circular Definition
a faulty definition that relies on knowledge of what is being
defined

CHAPTER 5
NOTIONS AND BELIEFS

5.1 What is a Fallacy?

Fallacy
A type of argument that may seem to be correct, but
contains a mistake in reasoning.
When premises of an argument fail to support its
conclusion, we say that the reasoning is bad; the argument
is said to be fallacious
In a general sense, any error in reasoning is a fallacy
In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a type of incorrect
argument

5.2 The Classification of Fallacies

Informal Fallacies
The type of mistakes in reasoning that arise form the
mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting
the argument

THE MAJOR INFORMAL FALLACIES
Fallacies of
Relevance
The most numerous and
most frequently
encountered, are those in
which the premises are
simply not relevant to
the conclusion drawn.
R1: Appeal to
Emotion
R2: Appeal to Pity
R3: Appeal to Force
R4: Argument Against
the Person
R5: Irrelevant
Conclusion
Fallacies of
Defective
Induction
Those in w/c the mistake
arises from the fact that
the premises of the
argument, although
relevant to the
conclusion, are so weak
D1: Argument from
Ignorance
D2: Appeal to
Inappropriate
Authority
D3: False Cause
- 4


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
& ineffective that reliance
upon them is a blunder.
D4: Hasty
Generalizations
Fallacies of
Presumption
Mistakes that arise
because too much has
been assumed in the
premises, the inference
to the conclusion
depending on that
unwarranted assumption.
P1: Accident
P2: Complex
Question
P3: Begging the
Question
Fallacies of
Ambiguity
Arise from the equivocal
use of words or phrases
in the premises or in the
conclusion of an
argument, some critical
term having different
senses in different parts
of the argument.
A1: Equivocation
A2: Amphiboly
A3: Accent
A4: Composition
A5: Division

5.3 Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies in which the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion.
They might be better be called fallacies of irrelevance,
because they are the absence of any real connection between
premises and conclusion.

R1: Appeal to Emotion (ad populum, to the populace)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on emotion rather than
on reason.

R2: Appeal to Pity (ad misericordiam, a pitying heart)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity,
altruism, or mercy, rather than on reason.

R3: Appeal to Force (ad baculum, to the stick)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the threat of force;
threat may also be veiled

R4: Argument Against the Person (ad hominem)
A fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against
the person taking a position
o Abusive: An informal fallacy in which an attack is made
on the character of an opponent rather than on the
merits of the opponents position
o Circumstantial: An informal fallacy in which an attack is
made on the special circumstances of an opponent
rather than on the merits of the opponents position

Poisoning the Well
A type of ad hominem attack that cuts off rational discourse

R5: Irrelevant Conclusion (ignaratio elenchi, mistaken proof)
A type of fallacy in which the premises support a different
conclusion than the one that is proposed
o Straw Man Policy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponents position is misrepresented
o Red Herring Fallacy: A type of irrelevant conclusion in
which the opponents position is misrepresented

Non Sequitor (Does not Follow)
Often applied to fallacies of relevance, since the conclusion
does not follow from the premises

5.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction

Fallacies of Defective Induction
Fallacies in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to
warrant the conclusion

D1: Argument from Ignorance (ad ignorantiam)
A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because
it has not been proved false, or false just because it has not
been proved true.

D2: Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (ad verecundiam)
A fallacy in which a conclusion is based on the judgment of
a supposed authority who has no legitimate claim to
expertise in the matter.

D3: False Cause (causa pro causa)
A fallacy in which something that is not really a cause, is
treated as a cause.
o Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: After the thing,
therefore because of the thing; a type of false cause
fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been
caused by another event that came before it.
o Slippery Slope: A type of false cause fallacy in which
change in a particular direction is assumed to lead
inevitably to further, disastrous, change in the same
direction.

D4: Hasty Generalizations (Converse accident)
A fallacy in which one moves carelessly from individual
cases to generalizations
Also called the fallacy of converse accident because it is the
reverse of another common mistake, known as the fallacy
of accident.

5.5 Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies in which the conclusion depends on a tacit
assumption that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.

P1: Accident
A fallacy in which a generalization is wrongly applied in a
particular case.

P2: Complex Question
A fallacy in which a question is asked in a way that
presupposes the truth of some proposition buried within the
question.
P3: Begging the Question (petitio principii, circular argument)
A fallacy in which the conclusion is stated or assumed within
one of the premises.
A petitio principii is always technically valid, but always
worthless, as well
Every petitio is a circular argument, but the circle that has
been constructed may if it is too large or fuzzy go
undetected

5.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Ambiguity (sophisms)
Fallacies caused by a shift or confusion of meaning within
an argument
A1: Equivocation
A fallacy in which 2 or more meanings of a word or phrase
are used in different parts of an argument

A2: Amphiboly
A fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words
can be interpreted more than 1 way
The argument contains a premise based on 1 interpretation
while the conclusion relies on a different interpretation

A3: Accent
A fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey 2 different
meaning within an argument, and the difference is based on
changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase

A4: Composition
A fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the
attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of the
whole.
The fallacy is reasoning from attributes of the individual
elements or members of a collection to attributes of the
collection or totality of those elements.

- 5


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
A5: Division
A fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the
attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the
whole.
o 1
st
Kind: consists in arguing fallaciously that what is
true of a whole must also be true of its parts.
o 2
nd
Kind: committed when one argues from the
attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves.

CHAPTER 6
CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

6.1 The Theory of Deduction

Deductive Argument
An argument that claims to establish its conclusion
conclusively
One of the 2 classes of arguments
Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid

Valid Argument
A deductive argument which, if all the premises are true, the
conclusion must be true.

Theory of Deduction
Aims to explain the relations of premises and conclusions in
valid arguments.
Aims to provide techniques for discriminating between valid
and invalid deductions.

6.2 Classes and Categorical Propositions

Class: The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
o Wholly included: All of one class may be included in all of
another class.
o Partially included: Some, but not all, of the members of one
class may be included in another class.
o Exclude: Two classes may have no members in common.

Categorical Proposition
A proposition used in deductive arguments, that asserts a
relationship between one category and some other category.

6.3 The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions

1. Universal affirmative proposition (A Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class.

2. Universal negative proposition (E Propositions)
Propositions that assert that the whole of one class is
excluded from the whole of another class.

3. Particular affirmative proposition (I Propositions)
Propositions that assert that two classes have some member
or members in common.

4. Particular negative proposition (O Propositions) Propositions
that assert that at least on member of a class is excluded from the
whole of another class.

Standard Form Categorical Propositions
Name and Type Proposition Form Example
A Universal Affirmative All S is P. All politicians are
liars.
E Universal Negative No S is P. No politicians are
liars.
I Particular Affirmative Some S is P. Some politicians
are liars.
O Particular Negative. Some S is not P. Some politicians
are not liars.


6.4 Quality, Quantity, and Distribution

Quality
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
whether the proposition affirms or denies some form of
class inclusion.
o If the proposition affirms some class inclusion,
whether complete or partial, its quality is
affirmative. (A and I)
o If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether
complete or partial, its quality is negative. (E and
O)

Quantity
An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by
whether the proposition refers to all members (universal) or
only some members (particular) of the subject class.
o If the proposition refers to all members of the
class designated by its subject term, its quantity is
universal.
(A and E)
o If the proposition refers to only some members of
the lass designated by its subject term, its
quantity is particular.
(I and O)

General Skeleton of a Standard-Form Categorical Proposition
quantifier
subject term
copula
predicate term

Distribution
A characterization of whether terms of a categorical
proposition refers to all members of the class designated by
that term.
o The A proposition distributes only its subject term
o The E proposition distributes both its subject and
predicate terms.
o The I proposition distributes neither its subject nor
its predicate term.
o The O proposition distributes only its predicate
term.

Quantity, Quality and Distribution
Letter Name Quantity Quality Distribution
A Universal Affirmative S only
E Universal Negative S and P
I Particular Affirmative Neither
O Particular Negative P only

6.5 The Traditional Square of Opposition


Opposition
Any logical relation among the kinds of categorical
propositions (A, E, I, and O) exhibited on the Square of
Opposition.

Contradictories
Two propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both
be false.
A and O are contradictories: All S is P is contradicted by
Some S is not P.
E and I are also contradictories: No S is P is contradicted
by Some S is P.

Contraries
Two propositions that cannot both be true
If one is true, the other must be false.
They can both be false.

Contingent
Propositions that are neither necessarily true nor
necessarily false
- 6


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Subcontraries
Two propositions that cannot both be false
If one is false, the other must be true.
They can both be true.

Subalteration
The oppositions between a universal (the superaltern) and its
corresponding particular proposition (the subaltern).
In classical logic, the universal proposition implies the truth of
its corresponding particular proposition.

Square of Opposition
A diagram showing the logical relationships among the four
types of categorical propositions (A, E, I and O).
The traditional Square of Opposition differs from the modern
Square of Opposition in important ways.

Immediate Inference
An inference drawn directly from only one premise.

Mediate Inference
An inference drawn from more than one premise.
The conclusion is drawn form the first premise through the
mediation of the second.

6.6 Further Immediate Inferences

Conversion
An inference formed by interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of a categorical proposition.
Not all conversions are valid.

VALID CONVERSIONS
Convertend Converse
A: All S is P. I: Some P is S (by limitation)
E: No S is P. E: No P is S.
I: Some S is P. I: Some P is S
O: Some S is not P. (conversion not valid)

Complement of a Class
The collection of all things that do not belong to that class.

Obversion
An inference formed by changing the quality of a proposition
and replacing the predicate term by its complement.
Obversion is valid for any standard-form categorical
proposition.

OBVERSIONS
Obvertend Obverse
A: All S is P. E: NO S is non-P
E: No S is P. A: All S is non-P.
I: Some S is P. O: Some S is not non-P.
O: Some S is not P. I: Some S is non-P.

Contraposition
An inference formed by replacing the subject term of a
proposition with the complement of its predicate term, and
replacing the predicate term by the complement of its subject
term.
Not all contrapositions are valid.

CONTRAPOSITION
Premise Contrapositive
A: All S is P. A: All non-P is non-S.
E: No S is P. O: Some non-P is not non-S. (by limitation)
I: Some S is P. (Contraposition not valid)
O: Some S is not P. O: Some non-P is not non-S.

6.7 Existential Import & the Interpretation of Categorical
Propositions

Boolean Interpretation
The modern interpretation of categorical propositions, in
which universal propositions (A and E) are not assumed to
refer to classes that have members.

Existential Fallacy
A fallacy in which the argument relies on the illegitimate
assumption that a class has members, when there is no
explicit assertion that it does.

Note: A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is
uttered to assert the existence of objects of some kind.

6.8 Symbolism and Diagrams for Categorical Propositions

Form Proposition Symbolic
Rep,
Explanation

A

All S is P
_
SP = 0
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is empty.

E

No S is P

SP = O
The class off things that are
both S and P is empty.

I

Some S is P

SP 0
The class of things that are
both S and P is not empty.
(SP as at least one member.)

O

Some S is
not P
_
SP O
The class of things that are
both S and non-P is not
empty. (SP has at least one
member).

Venn Diagrams
A method of representing classes and categorical
propositions using overlapping circles.

CHAPTER 7
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

7.1 Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism

Syllogism
Any deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred
from two premises.

Categorical Syllogism
A deductive argument consisting of 3 categorical
propositions that together contain exactly 3 terms, each of
which occurs in exactly 2 of the constituent propositions.

Standard-From Categorical Syllogism
A categorical syllogism in which the premises and
conclusions are all standard-form categorical propositions
(A, E, I or O)
Arranged with the major premise first, the minor premise
second, and the conclusion last.

The Parts of a Standard-Form Categorical Syllogism
Major Term The predicate term of the conclusion.
Minor Term The subject term of the conclusion.
Middle Term The term that appears in both premises but not in
the conclusion.
Major Premise The premise containing the major term. In standard
form, the major premise is always stated 1
st
.
Minor Premise The premise containing the minor term.

Mood
One of the 64 3-letter characterizations of categorical
syllogisms determined by the forms of the standard-form
propositions it contains.
The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by 3
letters, and those 3 letters are always given in the
standard-form order.
The 1
st
letter names the type of that syllogisms major
premise; the 2
nd
letter names the type of that syllogisms
minor premise; the 3
rd
letter names the type of its
conclusion.
Every syllogism has a mood.
- 7


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Figure
The logical shape of a syllogism, determined by the position
of the middle term in its premises
Syllogisms can have fourand only fourpossible different
figures:

The Four Figures
1
st
Figure 2
nd

Figure
3
rd
Figure 4
th
Figure
Schematic
Represen-
tation
M P
S M
.. S P
P M
S M
.. S P
M P
M S
.. S P
P M
M S
.. S P






Description
The
middle
term may
be the
subject
term of
the major
premise
and the
predicate
term of
the minor
premise.
The
middle
term may
be the
predicate
term of
both
premises.

The
middle
term may
be the
subject
term of
both
premises.

The middle
term may
be the
predicate
term of
the major
premise
and the
subject
term of
the minor
premise.

7.2 The Formal Nature of Syllogistic Argument

The validity of any syllogism depends entirely on its form.

Valid Syllogisms
- A valid syllogism is a formal valid argument, valid by virtue of
its form alone.
- If a given syllogism is valid, any other syllogism of the same
form will also be valid.
- If a given syllogism is invalid, any other syllogism of the
same form will also be invalid.

7.3 Venn Diagram Technique for Testing Syllogism

7.4 Syllogistic Rules and Syllogistic Fallacies

Syllogistic Rules and Fallacies
Rule Associated Fallacy
1. Avoid four terms. Four Terms
A formal mistake in which a
categorical syllogism contains more than
3 terms.
2. Distribute the middle
term in at least one
premise.
Undistributed Middle
A formal mistake in which a
categorical syllogism contains a middle
term that is not distributed in either
premise.
3. Any term distributed
in the conclusion must
be distributed in the
premises.
Illicit Major
A formal mistake in which the major
term of a syllogism is undistributed in
the major premise, but is disturbed in
the conclusion.
Illicit Minor
A formal mistake in which the minor
term of a syllogism is undistributed in
the minor premise but is distributed in
the conclusion.
4. Avoid 2 negative
premises.
Exclusive Premises
A formal mistake in which both
premises of a syllogism are negative.
5. If either premise is
negative, the conclusion
must be negative.
Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion
from a Negative Premise
A formal mistake in which one
premise of a syllogism is negative, but
he conclusion is affirmative.
6. From 2 universal
premises no particular
conclusion may be
drawn.
Existential Fallacy
As a formal fallacy, the mistake of
inferring a particular conclusion from 2
universal premises.
Note: A violation of any one of these rules is a mistake, and it
renders the syllogism invalid. Because it is a mistake of that special
kind, we call it a fallacy; and because it is a mistake in the form of
the argument, we call it a formal fallacy.

7.5 Exposition of the 15 Valid Forms of Categorical Syllogism

The 15 Valid Forms of the Standard-
Form Categorical Syllogism
1
st
Figure 1. AAA-1 Barbara
2. EAE-1 Celarent
3. AII-1 Darii
4. EIO1 Ferio
2
nd
Figure 5. AEE-2 Camestres
6. EAE-2 Cesare
7. AOO-2 Baroko
8. EIO-2 Festino
3
rd
Figure 9. AII-3 Datisi
10. IAI-3 Disamis
11. EIO-3 Ferison
12. OAO-3 Bokardo
4
th
Figure 13. AEE-4 Camenes
14. IAI-4 Dimaris
15. EIO-4 Fresison

7.6 Deduction of the 15 Valid forms of Categorical Syllogism


CHAPTER 8
SYLLOGISM IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE

8.1 Syllogistic Arguments

Syllogistic Argument
An Argument that is standard-form categorical syllogism, or
can be formulated as one without any change in meaning.

Reduction to Standard Form
Reformulation of a syllogistic argument into standard for.

Standard-Form Translation
The resulting argument when we reformulate a loosely put
argument appearing in ordinary language into classical
syllogism


Different Ways in Which a Syllogistic Argument in Ordinary
Language may Deviate from a Standard-Form Categorical
Argument:

First Deviation
The premises and conclusion of an argument in ordinary
language may appear in an order that is not the order of
the standard-form syllogism
Remedy: Reordering the premises: the major premise first,
the minor premise second, the conclusion third.

Second Deviation
A standard-form categorical syllogism always has exactly 3
terms. The premises of an argument in ordinary language
may appear to involve more than 3 terms but that
appearance might prove deceptive.
Remedy: If the number of terms can be reduced to 3 w/o
loss of meaning the reduction to standard form may be
successful.

Third Deviation
The component propositions of the syllogistic argument in
ordinary language may not all be standard-form
propositions.
Remedy: If the components can be converted into
standard-form propositions w/o loss of meaning, the
reduction to standard form may be successful.

- 8


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

8.2 Reducing the Number of Terms to Three

Eliminating Synonyms
A synonym of one of the terms in the syllogism is not really a
4
th
term, but only another way of referring to one of the 3
classes involved.
E.g. wealthy & rich

Eliminating Class Complements
Complement of a class is the collection of all things that do
not belong to that class (explained in 6.6)
E.g. mammals & nonmammals

8.3 Translating Categorical Propositions into Standard Form

Note: Propositions of a syllogistic argument, when not in standard
form, may be translated into standard form so as to allow the
syllogism to be tested either by Venn diagrams or by the use of rules
governing syllogisms.

I. Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a specific individual belongs
(or does not belong) to a particular class
Do not affirm/deny the inclusion of one class in another, but
we can nevertheless interpret a singular proposition as a
proposition dealing w/ classes and their interrelations
E.g. Socrates is a philosopher.
E.g. This table is not an antique.

Unit Class
o A class with only one member

II. Propositions having adjectives as predicates, rather than
substantive or class terms
E.g. Some flowers are beautiful.
o Reformulated: Some flowers are beauties.
E.g. No warships are available for active duty
o Reformulated: No warships are things available for
active duty.

III. Propositions having main verbs other than the copula to
be
E.g. All people seek recognition.
o Reformulated: All people are seekers or recognition.
E.g. Some people drink Greek wine.
o Reformulated: Some people are Greek-wine
drinkers.

IV. Statements having standard-form ingredients, but not in
standard form order
E.g. Racehorses are all thoroughbreds.
o Reformulated: All racehorses are thoroughbreds.
E.g. all is well that ends well.
o Reformulated: All things that end well are things
that are well.

V. Propositions having quantifiers other than all, no, and
some
E.g. Every dog has its day.
o Reformulated: All dogs are creatures that have their
days.
E.g. Any contribution will be appreciated.
o Reformulated: All contributions are things that are
appreciated.

VI. Exclusive Propositions, using only or none but
A proposition asserting that the predicate applies only to the
subject named
E.g. Only citizens can vote.
o Reformulated: All those who can vote are citizens.
E.g. None but the brave deserve the fair.
o Reformulated: All those who deserve the fair are
those who are brave.


VII. Propositions without words indicating quantity
E.g. Dog are carnivorous.
o Reformulated: All dogs are carnivores.
E.g. Children are present.
o Reformulated: Some children are beings who are
present.

VIII. Propositions not resembling standard-form propositions
at all
E.g. Not all children believe in Santa Claus.
o Reformulated: Some children are not believes in
Santa Claus.
E.g. There are white elephants.
o Reformulated: Some elephants are white things.

IX. Exceptive Propositions, using all except or similar
expressions
A proposition making 2 assertions, that all members of
some class except for members of one of its subclasses
are members of some other class
Translating exceptive propositions into standard form is
somewhat complicated, because propositions of this kind
make 2 assertions rather than one

E.g. All except employees are eligible.
E.g. All but employees are eligible.
E.g. Employees alone are not eligible.

8.4 Uniform Translation

Parameter
An auxiliary symbol that aids in reformulating an assertion
into standard form

Uniform Translation
Reducing propositions into standard-form syllogistic
argument by using parameters or other techniques.

8.5 Enthymemes

Enthymeme
An argument containing an unstated proposition
An incompletely stated argument is characterized a being
enthymematic

First-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the major premise

Second-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is taken for granted is the minor premise

Third-Order Enthymeme
An incompletely stated argument in which the proposition
that is left unstated is the conclusion

8.6 Sorites

Sorites
An argument in which a conclusion is inferred from any
number of premises through a chain of syllogistic inferences

8.7 Disjunctive and Hypothetical Syllogism

Disjunctive Syllogism
A form of argument in which one premise is a disjunction
and the conclusion claims the truth of one of the disjuncts
Only some disjunctive syllogisms are valid

Hypothetical Syllogism
A form of argument containing at least one conditional
proposition as a premise.

- 9


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism that contains conditional propositions exclusively

Mixed Hypothetical Syllogism
A syllogism having one conditional premise and one
categorical premise

Affirmative Mood/Modus Ponens (to affirm)
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion affirms its consequent

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise affirms the consequent, rather than the
antecedent, of the conditional premise

Modus Tollens (to deny)
A valid hypothetical syllogism in which the categorical
premise denies the consequent of the conditional premise,
and the conclusion denies its antecedent

Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in a hypothetical syllogism in which the
categorical premise denies the antecedent, rather than the
consequent, of the conditional premise

8.8 The Dilemma

Dilemma
A common form of argument in ordinary discourse in which it
is claimed that a choice must be made between 2 (usually
bad) alternatives
An argumentative device in which syllogisms on the same
topic are combined, sometimes w/ devastative effect

Simple Dilemma
The conclusion is a single categorical proposition

Complex Dilemma
The conclusion itself is a disjunction

Three Ways of Defeating a Dilemma

Going/escaping between the horns of the dilemma
Rejecting its disjunctive premise
This method is often the easiest way to evade the conclusion
of a dilemma, for unless one half of the disjunction is the
explicit contradictory of the other, the disjunction may very
well be false

Taking/grasping the dilemma by its horns
Rejecting its conjunction premise
To deny a conjunction, we need only deny one of its parts
When we grasp the dilemma by the horns, we attempt to
show that at least one of the conditionals is false

Devising a counterdilemma
One constructs another dilemma whose conclusion is opposed
to the conclusion of the original
Any counterdilemma may be used in rebuttal, but ideally it
should be built up out of the same ingredients (categorical
propositions) that the original dilemma contained

CHAPTER 9
SYMBOLIC LOGIC

9.1 Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language

Symbols
Greatly facilitate our thinking about arguments
Enable us to get to the heart of an argument, exhibiting its
essential nature and putting aside what is not essential
With symbols, we can perform some logical operations
almost mechanically, with the eye, which might otherwise
demand great effort
A symbolic language helps us to accomplish some
intellectual tasks without having to think too much

Modern Logic
Logicians look now to the internal structure of propositions
and arguments, and to the logical links very few in
number that are critical in all deductive arguments
No encumbered by the need to transform deductive
arguments in to syllogistic form
It may be less elegant than analytical syllogistics, but is
more powerful

9.2 The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, & Disjunction

Simple Statement
A statement that does not contain any other statement as a
component

Compound Statement
A statement that contains another statements as a
component
2 categories:
o W/N the truth value of the compound statement is
determined wholly by the truth value of its
components, or determined by anything other
than the truth value of its components

Conjunction ()
A truth functional connective meaning and
Symbolized by the dot ()
We can form a conjunction of 2 statements by placing the
word and between them
The 2 statements combined are called conjuncts
The truth value of the conjunction of 2 statements is
determined wholly and entirely by the truth values of its 2
conjuncts
If both conjuncts are true, the conjunction is true;
otherwise it is false
A conjunction is said to be a truth-functional component
statement, and its conjuncts are said to be truth-functional
components of it
Note: Not every compound statement is truth-functional

Truth Value
The status of any statement as true or false
The truth value of a true statement is true
The truth value of a false statement is false

Truth-Functional Component
Any component of a compound statement whose
replacement by another statement having the same truth
value would not change the truth value of the compound
statement

Truth-Functional Compound Statement
A compound statement whose truth function is wholly
determined by the truth values of its components

Truth-Functional Connective
Any logical connective (including conjunction, disjunction,
material implication, and material equivalence) between the
components of a truth-functional compound statement.

Simple Statement
Any statement that is not truth functionally compound

p q pq
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

- 10


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Negation/Denial/Contradictory (~)
symbolized by the tilde or curl (~)
often formed by the insertion of not in the original
statement

Disjunction/Alteration (v)
A truth-functional connective meaning or
It has a weak (inclusive) sense, symbolized by the wedge
(v) (or vee), and a strong (exclusive) sense.
2 components combined are called disjuncts or alternatives

p q p v q
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Punctuation
The parentheses brackets, and braces used in symbolic
language to eliminate ambiguity in meaning
In any formula the negation symbol will be understood to
apply to the smallest statement that the punctuation permits

9.3 Conditional Statements and Material Implication

Conditional Statement
A compound statement of the form If p then q.
Also called a hypothetical/implication/implicative statement
Asserts that in any case in which its antecedent is true, its
consequent is also true
It does no assert that its antecedent is true, but only if its
antecedent is true, its consequent is also true
The essential meaning of a conditional statement is the
relationship asserted to hold between its antecedent and
consequent

Antecedent (implicans/protasis)
In a conditional statement, that component that immediately
follows the if

Consequent (implicate/apodosis)
In a conditional statement, the component that immediately
follows the then

Implication
The relation that holds between the antecedent and the
consequent of a conditional statement.
There are different kinds of implication

Horseshoe ( )
A symbol used to represent material implication, which is
common, partial meaning of all if-then statements

p q ~q p~q ~ (p~q) p q
T T F F T T
T F T T F F
F T F F T T
F F T F T T

Material Implication
A truth-functional relation symbolized by the horseshoe ( )
that may connect 2 statements
The statement p materially implies q is true when either p
is false, or q is true

p q p q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

In general, q is a necessary condition for p and p only
if q are symbolized as p q
In general, p is a sufficient condition for q is
symbolized by p q

9.4 Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy

Refutation by Logical Analogy
Exhibiting the fault of an argument by presenting another
argument with the same form whose premises are known to
e true and whose conclusion is known to be false.

To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to formulate
another argument that:
Has exactly the same form as the first
Has true premises and a false conclusion

Note: This method is based upon the fact that validity and invalidity
are purely formal characteristics of arguments, which is to say that
any 2 arguments having exactly the same form are either both valid
or invalid, regardless of any differences in the subject matter which
they are concerned.

Statement Variable
A letter (lower case) for which a statement may be
substituted.

Argument Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of an
argument, it contains statement variables, but no
statements

Substitution Instance of an Argument Form
Any argument that results from the consistent substitution
of statements for statement variables in an argument form

Specific Form of an Argument
The argument form from which the given argument results
when a different simple statement is substituted for each
different statement variable.

9.5 The Precise Meaning of Invalid and Valid

Invalid Argument Form
An argument form that has at least one substitution
instance with true premises and a false conclusion

Valid Argument Form
An argument form that has no substitution instances with
true premises and a false conclusion

9.6 Testing Argument Validity on Truth Tables

Truth Table
An array on which the validity of an argument form may be
tested, through the display of all possible combinations of
the truth values of the statement variables contained in that
form

9.7 Some Common Argument Forms

Disjunctive Syllogism
A valid argument form in which one premise is a
disjunction, another premise is the denial of one of the two
disjuncts, and the conclusion is the truth of the other
disjunct

p v q
~ p
q


p q p v q ~p
T T T F
T F T F
F T T T
F F F T
- 11


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
Modus Ponens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise affirms the antecedent of that
conditional, and the conclusion affirms its consequent

p q
p
q

p q p q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Modus Tollens
A valid argument that relies upon a conditional premise, and
in which another premise denies the consequent of that
conditional, and the conclusion denies its antecedent

p q
~q
~p

p q p q ~q ~p
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T T T

Hypothetical Syllogism
A valid argument containing only conditional propositions

p q
q r
p r

p Q r p q q r p r
T T T T T T
T T F T F F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
F T T T T T
F T F T F T
F F T T T T
F F F T T T

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
A formal fallacy in which the 2
nd
premise of an argument
affirms the consequent of a conditional premise and the
conclusion of its argument affirms its antecedent
p q
q
p


Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
A formal fallacy in which the 2
nd
premise of an argument
denies the antecedent of a conditional premise and the
conclusion of the argument denies its consequent

p q
~p
~q

Note: In determining whether any given argument is valid, we must
look into the specific form of the argument in question

9.8 Statement Forms & Material Equivalence

Statement Form
An array of symbols exhibiting the logical structure of a
statement
It contains statement variables but no statements
Substitution Instance of Statement Form
Any statement that results from the consistent substitution
of statements for statement variables in a statement form

Specific Form of a Statement
The statement form from which the given statement results
when a different simple statement is substituted
consistently for each different statement variable

Tautologous Statement Form
A statement form that has only true substitution instances
A tautology:

p ~p p v ~p
T F T
F T T

Self-Contradictory Statement Form
A statement form that has only false substitution instances
A contradiction

Contingent Form
A statement form that has both true and false substitution
instances

Peirces Law
A tautological statement of the form [(p q) p] p

Materially Equivalent ( )
A truth-functional relation asserting that 2 statements
connected by the three-bar sign ( ) have the same truth
value

p q p q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F T

Biconditional Statement
A compound statement that asserts that its 2 component
statements imply one another and therefore are materially
equivalent

The Four Truth-Functional Connective
Truth-
Functional
Connective
Symbol
(Name of
Symbol)
Proposition
Type
Names of
Components of
Propositions of
that Type
And (dot) Conjunction Conjuncts
Or V (wedge) Disjunction Disjuncts
Ifthen (horseshoe) Conditional Antecedent,
consequent
If and only if (tribar) Biconditional Components

Note: Not is not a connective, but is a truth-function operator, so it
is omitted here

Note: To say that an argument form is valid if, and only if, its
expression in the form of a conditional statement is a tautology.

9.9 Logic Equivalence

Logically Equivalent
Two statements for which the statement of their material
equivalence is tautology
they are equivalent in meaning and may replace one
another

Double Negation
An expression of logical equivalence between a symbol and
the negation of the negation of that symbol


- 12


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

p

~p

~~p
T
p ~~p
T F T T
F T F T

Note: This table proves that p and ~~p are logically equivalent.

Material equivalence: a truth-functional connective, , which may be
true or false depending only upon the truth or falsity of the elements it
connects

Logical Equivalence: not a mere connective, and it expresses a
relation between 2 statements that is not truth-functional
Note: 2 statements are logically equivalent only when it is absolutely
impossible for them to have different truth values.

p q p v q ~(p v q) ~p ~q ~p~q ~(p v q) (~p~q)
T T T F F F F T
T F T F F T F T
F T T F T F F T
F F F T T T T T

De Morgans Theorems
Two useful logical equivalences
o (1) The negation of the disjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the conjunction of the
negations of the 2 disjuncts
o (2) the negation of the conjunction of 2 statements
is logically equivalent to the disjunction of the
negations of the 2 conjuncts

9.10 The Three Laws of Thought

Principle of Identity
If any statement is true, it is true.
Every statement of the form p p must be true
o Every such statement is a tautology

Principle of Noncontradiction
No statement can be both true and false
Every statement of the form p~p must be false
o Every such statement is self-contradictory

Principle of Excluded Middle
Every statement is either true or false
Every statement of the form p v ~ p must be true
Every such statement is a tautology

CHAPTER 10
METHODS OF DEDUCTION

10.1 Formal Proof of Validity

Rules of Inference
The rules that permit valid inferences from statements
assumed as premises

Natural Deduction
A method of providing the validity of a deductive argument
by using the rules of inference
Using natural deduction we can proved a formal proof of the
validity of an argument that is valid

Formal Proof of Validity
A sequence of statements, each of which is either a premise
of a given argument or is deduced, suing the rules of
inference, from preceding statements in that sequence, such
that the last statement in the sequence is the conclusion of
the argument whose validity is being proved

Elementary Valid Argument
Any one of a set of specified deductive arguments that serves
as a rule of inference & can be used to construct a formal
proof of validity


9 RULES OF INFERENCE:
ELEMENTARY VALID ARGUMENT FORMS
NAME ABBREV. FORM
1. Modus Ponens M.P. p q
p
q
2. Modus Tollens M.T. p q
~q
~p
3. Hypothetical Syllogism H.S. p q
q r
p r
4. Disjunctive Syllogism D.S p v q
~ p
q
5. Constructive Dilemma C.D. (p q) (r s)
p v r
q v s
6. Absorption Abs. p q
p (p q)
7. Simplification Simp. p q
p
8. Conjunction Conj. p
q
p q
9. Addition Add. p
p v q


10.2 The Rule of Replacement

Rule of Replacement
The rule that logically equivalent expressions may replace
each other
Note: this is very different from that of substitution


RULES OF REPLACEMENT:
LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSIONS
NAME ABBREV. FORM
10. De Morgans
Theorem
De M.
~(p q) (~ p v ~q)
~(p v q) (~ p ~q)
11. Commutation Com.
(p v q) (q v p)
(p q) (q p)
12. Association Assoc.
[p v (q v r)] [(p v q) v r]
[p (q r)] [(p q) r]
13. Distribution Dist.
[p (q v r)] [(p q) (p r)]
[p v (q r)] [(p v q) (p v r)]
14. Double
Negation
D.N.
p ~~ p
15. Transpor-
tation
Trans.
(p q) (~q ~p)
16. Material
Implication
Imp.
(p q) (~p v q)
17. Material
Equivalence
Equiv.
(p q) [(p q) (q p)]
(p q) [(p q) v (~p ~q)]
18. Exportation Exp.
[(p q) r] [p (q r)]
19. Tautology Taut.
p (p v p)
p (p p)




- 13


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC
The 19 Rules of Inference
The list of 19 rules of inference constitutes a complete system
of truth-functional logic, in the sense that it permits the
construction of a formal proof of validity for any valid truth-
functional argument
The first 9 rules can be applied only to whole lines of a proof
Any of the last 10 rules can be applied either to whole lines or
to parts of lines

The notion of formal proof is an effective notion
It can be decided quite mechanically, in a finite number of
steps, whether or not a given sequence of statements
constitutes a formal proof
No thinking is required
Only 2 things are required:
o The ability to see that a statement occurring in one
place is precisely the same as a statement occurring
in another
o The ability to see W/N a given statement has a
certain pattern; that is , to see if it is a substitution
instance of a given statement form

Formal Proof vs. Truth Tables
The making of a truth table is completely mechanical
There are no mechanical rules for the construction of formal
proofs
Proving an argument valid y constructing a formal proof of its
validity is much easier than the purely mechanical
construction of a truth table with perhaps hundreds or
thousands of rows

10.3 Proof of Invalidity

Invalid Arguments
For an invalid argument, there is no formal proof of invalidity
An argument is provided invalid by displaying at least one
row of its truth table in which all its premises are true but its
conclusion is false
We need not examine all rows of its truth table to discover an
arguments invalidity: the discovery of a single row in which
its premises are all true and its conclusion is false will suffice

10.4 Inconsistency

Note:
If truth values cannot be assigned to make the premises true
and the conclusion false, then the argument must be valid
Any argument whose premises are inconsistent must be valid
Any argument with inconsistent premises is valid, regardless
of what its conclusion may be

Inconsistency
Inconsistent statements cannot both be true
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (Untrustworthy in one
thing, untrustworthy in all)
Inconsistent statements are not meaningless; their trouble
is just the opposite. They mean too much. They mean
everything, in the sense of implying everything. And if
everything is asserted, half of what is asserted is surely false,
because every statement has a denial

10.5 Indirect Proof of Validity

Indirect Proof of Validity
An indirect proof of validity is written out by stating as an
additional assumed premise the negation of the conclusion
A version of reductio ad absurdum (reducing the absurd)
with which an argument can be proved valid by exhibiting the
contradiction which may be derived from its premises
augmented by the assumption of the denial of its conclusion
An exclamation point (!) is used to indicate that a given step
is derived after the assumption advancing the indirect proof
had been made
This method of indirect proof strengthens our machinery for
testing arguments by making it possible, in some
circumstances, to prove validity more quickly than would be
possible without it

10.6 Shorter Truth-Table Technique

Shorter Truth-Table Technique
An argument may be tested by assigning truth values
showing that, if it is valid, assigning values that would make
the conclusion false while the premises are true would lead
inescapably to inconsistency
Proving the validity of an argument with this shorter truth
table technique is one version of the use of reductio ad
absurdum but instead of suing the rules of inference, it
uses truth value assignments
Its easiest application is when F is assigned to a disjunction
(in which case both of the disjuncts must be assigned) or T
to a conjunction (in which case both of the conjuncts must
be assigned)
o When assignments to simple statements are thus
forced, the absurdity (if there is one) is quickly
exposed

Note: The reductio ad absurdum method of proof is often the most
efficient in testing the validity of a deductive argument

CHAPTER 11
QUANTIFICATION THEORY

11.1 The Need for Quantification

Quantification
A method of symbolizing devised to exhibit the inner logical
structure of propositions.

11.2 Singular Propositions

Affirmative Singular Proposition
A proposition that asserts that a particular individual has
some specified attribute

Individual Constant
A symbol used in logical notation to denote an individual

Individual Variable
A symbol used as a place holder for an individual constant

Propositional Function
An expression that contains an individual variable and
becomes a statement when an individual constant is
substituted for the individual variable

Simple Predicate
A propositional function having some true and some false
substitution instances, each of which is an affirmative
singular proposition

11.3 Universal and Existential Quantifiers

Universal Quantifier
A symbol (x) used before a propositional function to assert
that the predicate following is true of everything

Generalization
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
function by placing a universal quantifier or an existential
quantifier before it

Existential Quantifier
A symbol ( x) indicating that the propositional function
that follows has at least one true substitution instance.

Instantiation
The process of forming a proposition from a propositional
function by substituting an individual constant for its
individual variable
- 14


SIENNA A. FLORES LEGAL TECHNIQUE & LOGIC

11.4 Traditional Subject-Predicate Propositions

Normal-Form Formula
A formula in which negation signs apply only to simple
predicates

11.5 Proving Validity

Universal Instantiation (UI)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of any
substitution instance of a propositional function from its
universal quantification

Universal Generalization (UG)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of a
universally quantified expression from an expression that is
given as true of any arbitrarily selected individual

Existential Instantiation (EI)
A rule of inference that permits (with restrictions) the valid
inference of the truth of a substitution instance (for any
individual constant that appears nowhere earlier in the
context) from the existential quantification of a propositional
function

Existential Generalization (EG)
A rule of inference that permits the valid inference of the
existential quantification of a propositional function from any
true substitution instance of that function

Rules of Inference: Quantification


Universal
Instantiation
UI (x) ( x)
v
(where v is any
individual symbol)
Any substitution instance
of a propositional
function can be validly
inferred from its
universal quantification




Universal
Generalization
UG y
(x) ( x)
(where y denotes
any arbitrarily
selected individual)
From the substitution
instance of a
propositional function
with respect to the name
of any arbitrarily selected
individual, one may
validly infer the universal
quantification of that
propositional function




Existential
Instantiation
EI ( x)( x)
v
(where v is any
individual
constant, other
than y, having no
previous
occurrence in the
context)
From the existential
quantification of a
propositional function,
we may infer the truth of
its substitution instance
with respect to any
individual constant (other
than y) that occurs
nowhere earlier in the
context.



Existential
Generalization
EG v
( x)( x)
(where v is any
individual
constant)
From any true
substitution instance of a
propositional function,
we may validly infer the
existential quantification
of that propositional
function.

11.6 Proving Invalidity

11.7 Asyllogistic Inference

Asyllogistic Arguments
Arguments containing one or more propositions more
logically complicated than the standard A, E, I or O
propositions