traditional logic: introduction to formal logic
DESCRIPTION
Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic . Martin Cothran. Introduction. Logic: The Basics (1) . Logic: The science of right thinking. German philosopher Immanuel Kant called Aristotle “the father of logic.” Formal logic has changed little since Aristotle. . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Traditional Logic:Introduction to Formal Logic
Martin Cothran
![Page 2: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
![Page 3: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Logic: The Basics (1)
• Logic: The science of right thinking.
• German philosopher Immanuel Kant called Aristotle “the father of logic.”
• Formal logic has changed little since Aristotle.
![Page 4: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Two Branches of Logic (2)
• 1.) Material “major”: concerned with the content of argumentation. – Deals with the truth of the terms and propositions
in an argument. • 2.) Formal “minor”: interested in the form of
the structure of reasoning. – Truth is a secondary consideration; concerned
with the method of deriving one truth from another.
![Page 5: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
G. K. Chesterton (2)
“Logic and truth… have very little to do with each other. Logic is concerned merely with fidelity and accuracy with which a certain process is performed, a process which can be performed with any materials, with any assumption. You can be as logical about griffins and basilisks as about sheep and pigs… Logic, then, is not necessarily an instrument for finding out truth; on the contrary, truth is a necessary instrument for using logic—for using it, that is, for the discovery of further truth… Briefly, you can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”
![Page 6: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
This means what? (2)
• We should refer to statements as true or false, not logical or illogical.
• Likewise, arguments are not true or false, but valid or invalid. – Validity: helps describe if an argument is logical. – Truth: the correspondence of a statement to
reality.
![Page 7: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Argument Anatomy (3)
• Expect your arguments to take on the general structure:
Argument Term
All men are mortal Premise
Socrates is a man Premise
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Conclusion
![Page 8: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Mental Act vs. Verbal Expression
Mental Act Verbal Expression
Simple Apprehension Term
Judgment Proposition
Deductive Inference Syllogism
![Page 9: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Mental Acts (3-4)
• Simple Apprehension: occurs when we first form in our mind a concept of something. – EX: thinking of your logic book
• Judgment: to affirm or deny – You think: “This book is boring.”
• Deductive Inference: when we make the logical connections in our mind between the terms in the argument in a way that shows us that the conclusion either follows or does not follow from the premises; i.e., when we make progress
![Page 10: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Verbal Expression (4)
• Term: the verbal expression of a simple apprehension
• Proposition: the verbal expression of a statement
• Syllogism: the verbal expression of a deductive inference
![Page 11: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Drawing everything together… (5)
• Imagine moving from one room to another. –Moving your foot -> Simple Apprehension – Taking steps -> Performing judgment – Everything together -> Deductive inference
![Page 12: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Chapter 1What is Simple Apprehension?
![Page 13: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
What is Simple Apprehension? (9)
• The introduction said Simple Apprehension occurred when we first form in our mind a concept of something.
• Example: Looking at a chair– 1. We perceive it with our senses – 2. We form an image of it with our minds – 3. We conceive of its meaning
![Page 14: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1. Sense Perception (9)
• “Sense perception” is common vocabulary in all branches of philosophy
• Definition: The act of seeing or hearing or smelling or tasting or touching.
![Page 15: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1. Sense Perception (9)
• We have sense perception while we are in contact with objects – Your sense perception of a chair ends when
you stop looking at the chair, etc. – The sense perception of “chair” is different
than the chair itself because it is in your mind
![Page 16: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
2. Mental Image (9-10)
• Definition: The image of an object formed in the mind as a result of a sense perception of that object.
• Occurs when an image continues after sense perception ceases
• Different than both the chair itself, and the sense perception that it creates
![Page 17: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
3. Concept (10-11)
• Understanding without a mental image or sense perception.
• “When you grasp the concept of something, like a chair, you understand what a chair is.”
• “Simple apprehension is an act by which the mind grasps the concept of general meaning of an object without affirming or denying anything about it.”
![Page 18: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Other Terms (11)
• Essence: the meaning of a thing • Abstraction: The process by which a simple
apprehension is derived from a sense perception and a mental image – Helps raise a chair from the senses to the intellect
• To affirm or deny a Simple Apprehension is to engage in judgment – However, thinking merely “chair” is Simple
Apprehension
![Page 19: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Chapter 2Comprehension and Extension
![Page 20: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
First things… (15)
• This chapter will discuss the properties of Simple Apprehension. – Definitions explain what something is. – Properties distinguish objects from each other.
• The two properties of Simple Apprehension– Comprehension: tells the essence of a thing – Extension: tells us the things to which that
essence applies
![Page 21: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Comprehension (15)
• Defined as “the completely articulated sum of the intelligible aspects, or elements (or notes) represented by a concept.”
• Note this is NOT the definition you grew up with. Welcome to life.
• Not all concepts are simple. – Plato’s definition of man: a “featherless biped”– Plato later said man is a “rational animal”
![Page 22: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
What is an animal? (16)
• Animals break into four simple concepts: – Substance: something rather than nothing – Material: to have a non-spiritual body – Living (self-explanatory) – Sentient: to have senses
• These concepts are called “notes,” or intelligible aspects represented by a concept. – See explanation of “Comprehension.” – A chair has four notes.
![Page 23: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
What is a man? (16)
• “Man” breaks into five concepts or notes: – Substance– Material – Living– Sentient– Rational
• Comprehension of man, then, equals the sum of said five notes.
![Page 24: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
The Porphyrian Tree (17)
• Invented by third-century logician Porphyry
• Helps us break down complex concepts into simple concepts
• Comparable to our “Ladder of Abstraction” in terms of specificity
![Page 25: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Porphyrian Categories (17)
• Substance: material or nonmaterial – Unicorns have no substance yet chairs do. Do you
know why? • Body: living or nonliving (mineral) • Organism: sentient or nonsentient (plant) • Animal: rational or nonrational (brute) • Logical species: man
![Page 26: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Extension (19)
• Extensions tells us the things to which that essence applies. Think “example!”
• What is the extension of man? – All the men who have ever lived, who are now living, and
who will live in the future • The greater number of notes a concept has, the less
extension it has. • Man has five notes while animals have four. – “Man” is more specific than “animals”– There are more animals than man.
![Page 27: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Important! (19)
• The greater the comprehension a concept has, the less extension it has; and the more extension it has, the less comprehension.
• Example: Man has five notes while animals have four. Thus, man is more specific and applies to less things.
• The higher on the tree, the more to which the object applies. The lower, the less.
![Page 28: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Simple Apprehension Wrap Up
• Processes of Simple Apprehension– Sense Perception, Mental Image, Concept
• Two properties of Simple Apprehension – Comprehension: a description plus categories – Extension: describes the things to which the
concept applies • Next week we will have our last real
vocabulary lesson!
![Page 29: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Chapter 3: Signification and Supposition
![Page 30: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Overview
• Term: a word or group of words which verbally expresses a concept (23). – There are two properties of “terms”
• Signification: defined by if the term is univocal, equivocal, or analogous (23)
• Supposition: refers to types of existence, such as verbal, mental, or real (25)
![Page 31: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Univocal Terms
• Definition: have exactly the same meaning no matter when or how they are used (23)
• Latin: “unus” (one) + “vox” (voice)
• EX: photosynthesis, table saw, Phillips head screwdriver, drill bit
![Page 32: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Equivocal Terms (24)
• Definition: although spelled and pronounced exactly alike, have entirely different and unrelated meanings – Latin: “aequus” (equal) + “vox” (voice)
• Example: plane, jar, hang• “We must all hang together, or assuredly we
will all hang separately.” (Ben Franklin)
![Page 33: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Analogous Terms (24)
• Definition: applied to different things but have related terms
• Unlike equivocal terms, their differing meanings are related
• Example: “set of wheels” – Means both “car” and “new tires”
![Page 34: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Why does this matter? (24)
• Logic requires an accurate and consistent use of the terms
• The English language has many equivocal and analogous terms
• In real life, language confusion is the source of many arguments
![Page 35: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Example Argument (25)
• All NBA basketball players are men • Dennis Rodman is a good NBA basketball
player• Therefore, Dennis Rodman is a good man– This argument is invalid because “good” is used
analogously – This problem will be explained more in detail in
later lessons
![Page 36: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Supposition (25)
• Verbal existence: refers to material supposition– EX: “Man” is a three-letter word
• Mental existence: logical supposition – EX: “Man” has five notes
• Real existence: real supposition – EX: censored
![Page 37: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Summary of Chapters 1-3 (26)
• Three aspects of logic: simple apprehension, judgment, deductive inference
• Verbally expressed by terms, propositions, and syllogisms
• In future chapters we will discuss terms in propositions, then syllogisms (arguments)
![Page 38: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Chapter 4: What is Judgment? Chapter 5: The Four Statements of Logic
![Page 39: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Judgment (31)
• From the outset, Judgment (Mental Act) aligns with Proposition (Verbal Expression)
• Judgment: the act by which the intellect unites by affirming, or separates by denying
• EX: Man is an animal. – We are joining “Man” and “animal”
![Page 40: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Uniting Concepts in Judgments (31)
• Judgments are made of subjects and predicates
• Subjects: that about which we are saying something; the concept which we are affirming or denying
• Predicates: what we are saying about the subject; what we are affirming or denying about
![Page 41: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
The Proposition (32)
• Definitions: (1) the verbal expression of a judgment; (2) a sentence or statement which expresses truth or falsity
• Not all sentences are propositions (such as questions, commands, exclamations, etc.)
• Examples– It is raining today. – There is a fly in my soup.
![Page 42: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Elements of Proposition (32)
• There are three elements to any proposition: 1. The subject-term (S), verbal expression of
subject of a judgment 2. The predicate-term (P), verbal expression of a
predicate of a judgment 3. The copula (C), the word that connects or relates
the subject to the predicate; a form of “to be” such as “is” or “are”
![Page 43: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Examples of Propositions (32)
• Man (S) is (c) an animal (P). • The little brown-haired boy is very loud. – Subject: little brown-haired boy – Predicate: very loud
• Notice how this is similar to algebraic statements, such as X = Y.
• Modern logic takes this to an extreme, whereas Classical Logic does not.
![Page 44: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Logical Sentence Form (33)
• Sentences must be placed into a proper form to be handled logically.
• EX 1: “The little brown-haired boy screams very loudly” is not in logical form. – We need to rework the predicate portion
• EX 2: “The little brown-haired boy is a child who screams very loudly.”
![Page 45: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
The Four Statements of Logic (39)
• Formal Logic has four basic categorical forms: – A: All S is P. – I: Some S is P. – E: No S is P. – O: Some S is not P.
• The letters come from the Latin “affirmo” and “nego,” or “to affirm” and “to deny.”
• Note: Non-categorical propositions will not be covered in this curriculum.
![Page 46: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
To Affirm or Deny? (40)
• Affirmo – A: All S is P. (EX: All men are mortal) – I: Some S is P. (EX: Some men are mortal.)
• Nego– E: No S is P. (EX: No men are mortal.) – O: Some S is not P. (EX: Some men are not mortal.)
• Notice the pattern?
![Page 47: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
The Quantifier (40-41)
• Quantifiers tell us quality and quantity– Four kinds: All, Some, No, Some… not.
• Quality: affirmative or negative? – EX: “All men are mortal” affirms about “All men.”
• Quantity: universal or particular?– Universal: refers to all, not some – Particular: refers to some, not all
![Page 48: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Distinguishing Universals (41)
• When there is no quantifier, we must determine whether they are universal or particular. – EX: “Frogs are ugly” “All frogs are ugly”
• General rule: All is intended unless some is clearly indicated.
• EX: Men have gone to the North Pole. – Does not mean “all.” – “Some men have gone to the North Pole.”
![Page 49: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Closing Thoughts
• Universal/Particular cont.: In “Socrates is a man,” statement is singular (41).
• We can summarize quality-quantity like this: – A: Affirmative-Universal – I: Affirmative-Particular– E: Negative-Universal– O: Negative-Particular (42)
![Page 50: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Chapter 6: Contradictory and Contrary Statements
Chapter 7: Subcontraries and Subalterns
![Page 51: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Categorical Relations (49)
• Categorical statements are related via the relationship of opposition or equivalence. – The former has four relationships, the latter three.
• Four ways of opposition. – Contradictory– Contrary– Subcontrary – Subalternate
![Page 52: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
The Rule of Contradiction (49-50)
Contradictory statements are statements that differ in both quality and quantity. • Which statements differ in both quality and
quantity?
![Page 53: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
The Rule of Contradiction (49-50)
Contradictory statements are statements that differ in both quality and quantity. • Which statements differ in both quality and
quantity? – A is contradictory to O. – I is contradictory to E.
• What specific examples can we apply to these categories?
![Page 54: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
The First Law of Opposition (53)
Contradictories cannot at the same time be true nor at the same time false. • Does this hold for Example 1? – A: All men are mortal. – O: Some men are not mortal.
• And for Example 2? – E: No men are gods. – I: Some men are gods.
![Page 55: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Two More Rules (54)
The Rule of Contraries – Two statements are contrary to one another if
they are both universals but differ in quality. – Only one pair: A vs. E (All S is P and No S is P.)
The Second Law of Opposition – Contraries cannot at the same time both be true,
but can at the same time both be false. – What statements would this apply to?
![Page 56: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
The Rule of Subcontraries (61)
• Two statements are subcontrary if they are both particular statements that differ in quality.
• Which statements would these apply to?
![Page 57: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
The Rule of Subcontraries (61)
• Two statements are subcontrary if they are both particular statements that differ in quality.
• Which statements would these apply to? – I and O (“Some S is P” vs. “Some S is not P.”) – Some men are mortal. vs. Some men are not
mortal.
![Page 58: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
The Third Law of Opposition (63)
• Subcontraries may at the same time both be true, but cannot at the same time both be false.
• Explain the following example: – I: Some S is P. – O: Some S is not P.
• Explain something more specific…
![Page 59: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
The Rule of Subalterns (63)
Two statements are subalternate if they have the same quality, but differ in quantity. • They are not opposite, but related
nonetheless. • Which statements would fall under this
category?
![Page 60: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
The Rule of Subalterns (63)
Two statements are subalternate if they have the same quality, but differ in quantity. • They are not opposite, but related
nonetheless. • Which statements would fall under this
category? – A (“All S is P”) and I (“Some S is P”) – E (“No S is P”) and O (“Some S is not P”)
![Page 61: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
The Fourth Law of Opposition (63-65)
Subalterns may both be true or both be false. If the particular is false, the universal is false; if the universal is false, then the particular is true; otherwise, their status is indeterminate. • For A and I statements, if “Some S is P” is
false, then “All S is P” is false. • For E and O statements, if “Some S is not P” is
false, then “No S is P” is false.
![Page 62: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Square of Opposition
![Page 63: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Chapter 8: Distribution of Terms
![Page 64: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Distribution (71)
• Distribution is the status of a term in regard to its extension. – Reminder: Extension is a description of the things
to which a concept applies (19). • Reminder: Subjects and predicates. – Where is the subject in “All S is P”? – Where is the predicate in “All S is P”?
• Distributed is when a term is used universally. What, then, would undistributed mean? (72)
![Page 65: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Distribution of Subject-Terms (73)
Rule: The subject-term is distributed in statements whose quantity is universal and undistributed in statements who quantity is particular. – Look to the quantifier: All, Some, No, Some… not
Type of Sentence Subject-Term
A (“All S is P”) Distributed
I (“Some S is P”) Undistributed
E (“No S is P”) Distributed
O (“Some S is not P”) Undistributed
![Page 66: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
Distribution of Predicate-Terms (72)
Rule: In affirmative propositions the predicate-term is always taken particularly (and therefore undistributed), and in negative propositions the predicate is always taken universally (and therefore distributed).
Type of Sentence Subject-Term Predicate-Term
A (“All S is P”) Distributed Undistributed
I (“Some S is P”) Undistributed Undistributed
E (“No S is P”) Distributed Distributed
O (“Some S is not P”) Undistributed Distributed
![Page 67: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Distribution of the Predicate-Term in A Statements
Animal
Man
All men are animals.
![Page 68: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
Distribution of the Predicate-Term in I Statements
Dogs Vicious Things
Some dogs are vicious animals
![Page 69: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
Distribution of the Predicate-Term in E Statements
Men Reptiles
No man is a reptile.
![Page 70: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
Distribution of the Predicate-Term in O Statements
Some men are not blind.
![Page 71: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Different ways to Diagram I statements
Some men are carpenters.
Why are the lines dotted?
![Page 72: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
Different ways to diagram O statements
Some men are not carpenters.
![Page 73: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Chapter 9: Obversion, Conversion, and Contraposition
![Page 74: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Review: Categorical Relations
• Categorical statements are related via the relationship of opposition or equivalence.
• Four modes of opposition: Contradictory, Contrary, Subcontrary, and Subalternate (49)
• Three modes of equivalence (81) – Obversion: works on all statements (82)– Conversion: for E and I statements (85) – Contraposition: for A and O statements (85)
![Page 75: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Obversion, Part 1 (81)
• To obvert: (1) change the quality and (2) negate the predicate. – (1) If affirmative, negate; if negative, affirm. – Warning: Do not change the quantity.
Statement Step 1A: All S is P No S is PE: No S is P All S is PI: Some S is P Some S is not PO: Some S is not P Some S is P
![Page 76: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
Obversion, Part 1 (82)
• To obvert: (1) change the quality and (2) negate the predicate. – Place “not” in front of it.
• What would this look like for each statement?Statement Statement Obverted A: All S is P No S is not PE: No S is P All S is not PI: Some S is P Some S is not non-PO: Some S is not P Some S is not P
![Page 77: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Double Negation of Predicate-I (82)
• How do we handle “Some S is not non-P”? 1. Have two adjacent “not’s”2. Switch the “non” and “not” (sounds better!) 3. Add prefix in the predicate: im, un, in, ir4. Rule of double negation.
• EX 1: Some men are not non-mortal. • EX 2: Some Pokémon are not non-Fire-types.
![Page 78: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
Double Negation (83)
• The rule of double negation says that a term which is not non negated is equivalent to a term that is negated twice (and visa-versa). – Example: “not not P” to “P”
• O: Some S is not P Some S is not not not P– Thus, and obverse O statement is equivalent
![Page 79: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Conversion (84)
• Interchange the subject and predicate. – E: No S is P No P is S– I: Some S is P Some P is S
• Partial conversion of the A– All dogs are animals Some animals are dogs. – Why does this make sense?
• Will this work for A and O statements?
![Page 80: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Contraposition (84)
• Three steps: (1) obvert, (2) convert, (3) obvert and the statement again.
• Example for A statement: All men are mortal.– Obvert: No men are non-mortal– Convert: No non-mortals are men. – Obvert: All non-mortals are non-men.
• For O statements (steps condensed): – Some S is not P Some non-P is S.
![Page 81: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
To Be Updated…
• Review for Chapters 4-9 (85-87)– Located in your book. Very helpful!
• Upcoming Chapters – 10: What is Deductive Inference? – 11: Terminological Rules for Categorical Syllogisms – 12: Quantitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms – 13: Qualitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms
![Page 82: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Chapter 10: What is Deductive Inference?
![Page 83: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Introduction (95)
• Chapters 4-9 have discussed proposition.
• Deductive inference is one kind of reasoning. • Reasoning: the act by which the mind acquires new
knowledge by means of what it already knows.
Mental Act Verbal ExpressionSimple Apprehension Term
Judgment PropositionDeductive Inference Syllogism
![Page 84: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Introduction (96)
• Deductive inference: the act by which the mind establishes a connection between the antecedent and the consequent.
• Syllogism: a group of propositions in orderly sequences, one of which (consequent) is said to be necessarily inferred form the others (antecedent)
Argument Term Definition
All men are mortal. Premise/Antecedent Goes before
Socrates is a man. Premise/Antecedent Goes before
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. Conclusion/Consequent Conclude
![Page 85: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Validity (96-97)
• Essential Law of Argumentation: If the antecedent is true, the consequent must also be true.
Two corollaries • 1.) If the syllogism is valid and the consequent
is false, then the antecedent must be false. • 2.) In a valid syllogism with a true consequent,
the antecedent is not necessarily true.
![Page 86: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Corollary 1 (97)
All men are sinners. My dog Spot is a man. Therefore, my dog Spot is a sinner. • This syllogism is valid (premises are true,
therefore conclusion is true). • But the conclusion is true. Corollary 1 says a
premise is false. Which one is false?
![Page 87: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
Corollary 2 (97)
All vegetables are philosophers. Socrates is a vegetable. Therefore, Socrates is a philosopher. • The conclusion is true: Socrates is a
philosopher. • Corollary 2 says although the consequent is
true, its antecedents are false.
![Page 88: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Terms in a Syllogism (97-98)
• Major Term: the predicate of the conclusion• Minor Term: the subject of the conclusion • Middle Term: appears in both premises, but
not the conclusion. All menM are mortalP. SocratesS is a manM. Therefore, SocratesS is mortalP.
![Page 89: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Syllogism Simplified (98)
• Chapters 4-9 matter because of the following:
• Notice terms boil into subjects and predicates, which makes syllogisms possible.
Argument Simplified
All menM are mortalP. All M is P.
SocratesS is a manM. All S is M.
Therefore, SocratesS is mortalP Therefore, All S is P.
![Page 90: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Proper Form (98-99)
• A syllogism is properly formed if the major premise if first, the minor premise is second, and the conclusion is third. – Major premise: contains the major term. – Minor premise: contains the minor term.
• However, not a syllogisms are properly formed, meaning we may have to rearrange them.
![Page 91: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Syllogistic Principles (99)
• Principle of Reciprocal Identity: two terms that are identical with a third term are identical to each other.
• EX: mortal vs. man, man vs. SocratesArgument TermAll menM are mortalP. M = MSocratesS is a manM. S = MTherefore, SocratesS is mortalP S = M, or Subject = Predicate
![Page 92: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
Syllogistic Principles (99)
• Principle of Reciprocal Non-Identity: two terms, one of which is identical with a third term and the other of which is non-identical with that third term, are non-identical to each other.
Syllogism Term No men are angels. M ≠ ASocrates is a man. S = MTherefore, Socrates is not an angel. S ≠ A or S ≠ P
![Page 93: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Syllogistic Principles (99)
• Dictum de Omni: what is affirmed universally of a certain term is affirmed of every term that comes under the term.
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. • Since every man is mortal, Socrates, an
extension of man, is therefore mortal.
![Page 94: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Syllogistic Principles (100)
• Dictum de Nullo: what is denied universally of a certain term is denied of every term that comes under that term.
No man is God. Socrates is man. Therefore, Socrates is not God. • This argument denies divinity universally of
men.
![Page 95: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Chapter 11: Terminological Rules for Categorical Syllogisms
![Page 96: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
The Seven Rules (107)
Terminological Rules • I. There must be three and only three terms. • II. The middle term must not occur in the
conclusion. Quantitative Rules • III. If a term is distributed in the conclusion,
then it must be distributed in the premises. • IV. The middle term must be distributed at least
once.
![Page 97: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
The Seven Rules (107)
Qualitative Rules • V. No conclusion can follow from two negative
premises. • VI. If the two premises are affirmative, the
conclusion must also be affirmative. • VII. If either premise is negative, the
conclusion must also be negative.
![Page 98: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
Terminological Rules (107-108)
Rule 1: There must be three and only three terms. • Can be violated in two ways. • 1. Fallacy of Four Terms: when there are more
than three clearly distinguishable terms. • 2. Fallacy of Equivocation: when we use a term
for both its meanings
![Page 99: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
Fallacy of Four Terms (108)
All mammals (S) have hair (P) All horses (?) have manes (?) Therefore, some mammals (S) have hair (P)
Note: None of these terms actually connect. However, changing one term makes it valid:
All mammals (M) have hair (P) All horses (S) are mammals (M) Therefore, all horses (S) have hair (P)
![Page 100: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
Fallacy of Equivocation (108)
• This fallacy is less obvious. Example below. – All planes are two-dimensional – All 747s are planes – Therefore, all 747s are two-dimensional
• Because the middle terms are use equivocally, there are four terms.
• Therefore, the argument is not valid.
![Page 101: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
Terminological Rules (109)
• Rule II: The middle term must not occur in the conclusion.
• The role of the middle is to connect the major and minor terms. If it were in the conclusion, it would stand in for the others. – All plants are living things – All animals are living things – Therefore, all living things are plants or animals
![Page 102: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
Chapter 12: Quantitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms
![Page 103: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
Quantitative Rules (116)
• Rule III: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premises.
• Prevents us from trying to say more in the conclusion than what is contained in the premises.
• Distribution: the status of a term in regard to its extension (what a term refers to).
![Page 104: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
Quick Reminders
Two Things To Remember… • Quantity: Universal or Particular? (115-116)• Distribution by Category (Chapter 8)
![Page 105: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
Quantitative Rules (116)
• All angels___ are spiritual beings___ • No men___ are angels___ • Therefore, no men___ are spiritual beings___– This conclusion presumes all spiritual beings are
angels, but that is not stated in the premises. – The conclusion says more than the premise allows. – While the premises are both true, they are not valid. *Use the Distribution Chart and fill this in using S, P, and M, and “d” for Distributed, and “u” for…
![Page 106: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
Quantitative Rules (116-117)
• All angels (Md) are spiritual beings (Pu) • No men (Sd) are angels (Md) • Therefore, no men (Sd) are spiritual beings
(Pd)– Notice the Predicate is distributed in the
Conclusion, but not the Premise. Thus, it violates Rule III.
![Page 107: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
Rule III Fallacies (117-118)
Syllogisms that violate Rule III commit the Fallacy of Illicit Process. • 1. Fallacy of Illicit Major: when the major term is
distributed in the conclusion, but not the premises • 2. Fallacy of Illicit Minor: when the minor term is
distributed in the conclusion, but not the premises • Remember: Fallacies are so because they are easy to mix
up. Reach each term for what it is; not what it says in its respective premise/conclusion.
![Page 108: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
Rule III Fallacies (118)
Which Rule III fallacy does this fit? • All men___ are animals___• All men___ are mortals___• Therefore, all mortals___ are animals___– Fill in the terms as they are, and then add the
distribution.
![Page 109: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
Rule III Fallacies (118)
Which Rule III fallacy does this fit? • All men (Md) are animals (Pu) • All men (Md) are mortals (Su) • Therefore, all mortals (Sd) are animals (Pu) – The Fallacy of the Illicit Minor, because the minor
term is not distributed in the minor premise.
![Page 110: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
Quantitative Rules (118)
• Rule IV: The middle term must be distributed at least once.
• The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle • Fill in the following syllogism – All angels___ are spiritual beings___– All men___ are spiritual beings___– Therefore, all men___ are angels___
![Page 111: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
Quantitative Rules (118)
The Correct Answer • All angels (Pd) are spiritual beings (Mu) • All men (Sd) are spiritual beings (Mu) • Therefore, all men (Sd) are angels (Pu) – Notice the middle, although used, was not
distributed. Thus, this syllogism is not valid.
![Page 112: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
Chapter 13: Qualitative Rules for Categorical Syllogisms
![Page 113: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
Review of Rules I-IV (125)
Terminological Rules • I. There must be three and only three terms. • II. The middle term must not occur in the
conclusion. Quantitative Rules • III. If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it
must be distributed in the premises. • IV. The middle term must be distributed at least
once.
![Page 114: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
Making Predictions…
• If Quantitative Rules dealt with Quantity, that is, distribution, what might today’s rules do?
• Quality is defined as what? • How might that affect syllogisms?
![Page 115: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
Qualitative Rules (126)
• Rule V: No conclusion can follow from two negative premises.
• Prevents us from saying more in the conclusion than is stated in the premises.
• When broken, commits The Fallacy of Exclusive Premises.
![Page 116: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
An Example (126)
• The following syllogism breaks Rule V– No plants are animals – Some minerals are not animals – Therefore, some minerals are not plants
• While both premises are true, the conclusion does not follow.
• Remember: No conclusion can follow from two negative premises!
![Page 117: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
Qualitative Rules (126)
• Rule VI: If the two premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be affirmative.
• Syllogism: Fallacy of Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises. – All men are mortals – All mortals make mistakes – Therefore, some things that make mistakes are
not men
![Page 118: Traditional Logic: Introduction to Formal Logic](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022061517/5681665d550346895dd9e07e/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
Qualitative Rules (126)
• Rule VII: If either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative.
• If breaks, Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from a Negative Premise. – All cannibals are bloodthirsty – Some accountants are not bloodthirsty– Therefore, some accountants are cannibals