INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr.

FRANCIS OFOR

11th October, 2008

 Introduction to Logic – Course Outline

 General Introduction
 Meaning of Logic
 Meaning and nature of argument
 Types of argument – Deductive and Inductive
 Notion of truth – Validity, Soundness
 Aristotelian Logic
 Categorical Proposition – Meaning, Types and Relationship among
propositions
 Categorical syllogism

 What is Logic

Logic is a branch of philosophy that teaches us the method,

principles and techniques employed to distinguish good (correct)
from bad (incorrect) reasoning. The term ‘logic” is from the Greek
word ‘logos”, which means, ‘reasoned discourse.

Logic assists us in avoiding error in reasoning, it helps us to identify

flaws in argument, it aids us in evaluating lengthy arguments and it
makes it easy for us to avoid fallacies.

 Meaning and Nature of Argument.

The word argument can be interpreted in two ways – the ordinary

man’s interpretation and the technical interpretation. The ordinary
man sees argument as a quarrel between two persons. On the
technical or profession sense however, an argument is a set of
proposition. This proposition connects any discourse having certain
logical structure in which some statements are presented as
supportive of others. The proffered statement is known as
Premise(s) while the supportive part is called conclusion.

Argument is a group of propositions or statements, one of which,

that is, conclusion is claimed to follow inferentially from the others
called the premise(s). Premise serves as reasons, evidence or
grounds for the acceptance of the conclusion. The combination of
the premises and conclusion constitutes an argument.

 Inference

Inference is the process by which one statement is arrived at and

affirmed on the basis of one or more other statements asserted as
the starting point of a process.

Example: John is shivering because the weather is cold.

Corresponding to every inference is an argument. Both arguments

and inferences involve evidences and conclusion standing in relation
1
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

to each other. The main difference lies in the fact that an argument
is a linguistic entity, a group of statements, an inference is not. The
conclusion of an argument is a statement; the conclusion of an
inference is an opinion, a belief, or some such thing.

 Conclusion Indicators

These terms, words or phrases point to the conclusion:

Therefore, hence, thus, it is the case that, in consequence, as a

result, proves that, accordingly, it follows that, which means that,
which allows us to infer that, which implies, which points to the
conclusion that etc.

 Premise Indicators

These terms, words or phrases point to the premise(s) of an

argument.

Since; because; for; as; follows from; in view of; as shown by; in as
much as; otherwise; is substantiated by; as indicated by; the reason
is that; for the reason that; may be inferred from; may be derived
from; in view of the fact that; etc.

An argument can contain one premise and a conclusion or two or

more premises as the case may be

Examples of arguments

“… that judges of important cases should hold office for life is a

disputable thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body.

Treatment:

Premise 1: The mind grows old as well as the body

Conclusion: That judges of important cases should hold office for life
is a disputable thing.

 Types of Arguments

There are two types of arguments namely – Deductive and Inductive

arguments.

 Deductive Argument

An argument is deductive when you move from universal premise to

a particular conclusion. Also the premise of a deductive argument
provides a conclusive ground for its conclusion or deductive
argument is an argument in which the premises give total support
to the conclusion of the argument.

2
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

Example:

1. All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Hence if the premises are accepted the conclusion cannot be

rejected.

2. Every mammal has a heart

All horses are mammals
Therefore every horse has a heart.

Sometimes you also argue from universal premises to a universal

conclusion in a deductive argument as shown in example two.

 Inductive Argument.

In an Inductive argument, one moves from particular premises to

universal conclusion. Put differently, inductive argument is one in
which the premises give partial support to the conclusion

Example:

1. Socrates is human and is mortal

Xanthippe is human and is mortal
Sappo is human and is mortal
Therefore probably all humans are mortal

2. All cows are mammals and have lungs

All horses are mammals and have lungs
All humans are mammals and have lugs
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.

3. Hitler was a dictator and was ruthless

Stalin was a dictator and was ruthless
Castro is a dictator
Therefore Castro is probably ruthless.

We must not that the premises of an inductive argument do not give

conclusive or one hundred percent support to the conclusion, rather
the premises in inductive arguments only gives some support to the
conclusion. This support may be strong, weak or nil but certainly not
total. In an inductive argument, it is possible to accept the premises
and deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself.

 Classification of Argument

3
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

1. In an argument that is deductive, the premises give total support

or conclusive support to the conclusion, but in the case of inductive
argument, the premises gives partial support to the conclusion.

2. In the case of deductive argument, the conclusion cannot contain

more information that what we already have in the premises

Example: All men are mortal

Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

In the case of an inductive argument, the conclusion can contain

more information than what we have in the premise.

All politicians are mortal and will eventually die

All soldiers are mortal and will eventually die
All police are mortal and will eventually die
Therefore all men are mortal and will eventually die.

An argument is valid if it is not possible for the premises to be true

and the conclusion false.

 Truth and Validity

 Soundness – a sound argument is an argument that that is
deductive, that is valid and in which all the premises are true and
the conclusion true.

 Aristotelian Logic

Aristotelian logic deals with certain kind of propositions known as

categorical propositions. Categorical propositions deals with two
classes – it either affirms or denies something of something else.

 Kinds of propositions.

There are four types of propositions.

A: All men are mortal (All S is P)

I: Some men are mortal (Some S is P)

E: No men are asses (No S is P)

O: Some men are not Americans (Some S is not P)

 Quality and quantity of a proposition

4
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

Each categorical proposition has a quality and quantity. A

categorical proposition is affirmative or negative in quality according
to whether it affirms or denies the relationship of class inclusion
between its terms.

A and I propositions are affirmative in quality

E and O propositions are negative in quality

 General Scheming

“A” propositions are Universal in quantity and affirmative in quality.

“I” propositions are particular in quantity and affirmative in quality
“E” propositions are universal in quantity and negative in quality.
“O” propositions are particular in quantity and negative in quality.

NOTE: All, Some; No; are called quantifiers. They help in

determining the quantity of categorical propositions – don’t include
them when analysing a sentence.

 Exercises

1. Man is superior to other animal because he is the only animal that

can ask question about his existence.

Here, we have a premise and a conclusion

Premise 1: Man is the only animal that can ask question about his
existence

Conclusion: Therefore, man is superior to other animals

2. Abortion is evil not only to the victim but also to our sense of
justice hence it should be avoided.

Premise 1: Abortion is evil not only to the victim but also to our
sense of justice.

Conclusion: Therefore it should be avoided

3. All men are mortal; therefore, since the Pope is a man, the Pope
is mortal.

Premise 1: All men are mortal

Premise 2: The Pope is a man

Conclusion: Therefore the Pope is mortal

4. In as much as man is created first, man should be the master of

all creatures.
5
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

Premise 1: Man was created first

Conclusion: Therefore man should be the master of all other
creatures.

5. The death of God is not debatable. If he is not dead, he should

have punished all the unjust men of the world.

Premise 1: If God is not dead, he should have punished all the

unjust men of the world.

Premise 2: God has not punished all the unjust men of the world.

Conclusion: Therefore the death of is not debatable

3/10/2008

 Distribution

Distribution is a technical term used to describe the way terms

occur in categorical propositions. A categorical proposition
distributes a term if it refers to all members of the class designated
by that term.

“A”: All men are mortal

‘A’ propositions distribute their subject terms but do not distribute
their predicate terms

“E”: No men are asses

“E” propositions distribute both their subject and predicate terms.

“I”: Some men are mortal

‘I’ propositions do not distribute both their subject and predicate

terms.

“O”: Some men are not Americans

‘O’ propositions do not distribute their subject terms whereas the

predicate terms are distributed.

 Exercises

1. Some members of families that are rich and famous are not
persons of either wealth or distinction.

“I” proposition
Subject: Members of families that are rich and famous
Predicate: persons of either wealth or distinction
Copula: are not
6
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

Quantity: Particular
Quality: Negative.

2. No people who have not themselves done creative work in the

arts are responsible critics on whose judgment we can rely.

“E” proposition
Subject: People who have not themselves done creative work in the
arts.
Predicate: responsible critics on whose judgement we can rely
Quantity: Universal
Quality: negative

3. No dog which are without pedigree are candidates for blue ribbon
in official dog show which are sponsored by the American kennel
society.

“E” proposition
Subject: Dogs which are without pedigree
Copula: are not
Predicate: candidates for blue ribbon in the official dog show which
are sponsored by the American kennel society.
Quantity: universal
Quality: Negative

4. Some recent rulings of the Supreme Courts were politically

motivated decisions which flouted the entire history of the Nigerian
legal practise.

“I” proposition
Subject: recent ruling of the Supreme Court
Predicate: politically motivated decision which flouted the entire
history of the Nigerian legal practise
Quantity: particular
Quality: Affirmative.

 Square of opposition

Opposition is a technical term used to describe the relationship

between categorical propositions having the same subject and
predicate terms but which differ in terms of quantity and quality.

 Contradictories.

Two propositions are contradictories if one is a negation of the

other. That is, if they cannot be true and false together.

“A” and “O” propositions; “E” and “I” propositions are

contradictories.
Examples:
7
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

1. A: All men are mortal

O: Some men are not mortal

2. E: No men are mortal

I: Some men are mortal.

If one is true, the other one has to false, and vice versa.

 Contraries.

Two propositions are contraries if they cannot both be true although

they can both be false. “A” and “E” propositions are contraries.

Examples:

1. A: All Nigerians are liars

E: No Nigerians are liars.

 Sub-contraries.

Two propositions are sub-contraries if although they can both be

true, but they cannot both be false. “I” and “O” propositions are
sub-contraries.

Example:

1. I: Some men are Nigerians

O: Some men are not Nigerians.

 Super-altern.

If the “A” proposition is the superaltern of “I” proposition, what is

meant is that from the truth of “A”, we can infer the truth of “I”.
Also from the truth of an “E” proposition, we can infer the truth of
“O” proposition.

Example:

1. All men are mortal - A

Some men are mortal – I

2. No men are mortal - E

Some men are not mortal – O

“A” is the superaltern of “I” and “E” is the superaltern of “O”

 Sub-altern

8
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

When we say a proposition say “O” is the sub-altern of another say

“E”, what is meant is that from the falsity of “O”, we can infer the
falsity of “E”. “O” is the subaltern of “E” while “I” is the subaltern of
“A”

Examples:

1. O: Some men are not mortal, if false, then

E: No men are mortal is also false.

2. I: If some men are mortal is false, then

A: All men are mortal is also false.

 Truth and falsity of categorical propositions.

 “A” proposition given as true.

 If “A” proposition is given as true, “E” proposition is

false, because “A” and “E” are contraries to each other and they
cannot both be true at the same time though they can both be false.

 If “A” proposition is given as true, “I” is true because

“A” is superaltern to “I” and from the truth of “A”, we can infer the
truth of “I”.

 If “A” proposition is given as true, “O” is false because

they are contradictories to each other.

 “A” proposition given as false.

 If “A” proposition is given as false, “E” and “I” proposition is

undetermined.

All Nigerians are liars - A

No Nigerians are liars - E
Some Nigerians are liars - I

 If “A” proposition is given as false, “O” is true.

Some Nigerians are not liars.

 If “E” proposition is given as true, A proposition is false, “I”

proposition is false, “O” proposition is true.

No Nigerians are liars – E – true

All Nigerians are liars – A – false
Some Nigerians are liars – I – false
Some Nigerians are not liars – O – true
 If “E” proposition is given as false, “I” is true while “A” and “O”
are undetermined.

9
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

No Nigerians are liars – E – false

All Nigerians are liars – A – undetermined
Some Nigerians are liars – I – true
Some Nigerians are not liars – O – undetermined.

 I proposition being given as true, “E” is false while “A” and “O”
are undetermined.

Some Nigerians are liars – I – true

All Nigerians are liars – A – undetermined
No Nigerians are liars – E – false
Some Nigerians are not liars – O – undetermined.

 I proposition being given as false, “A” is false, “E” and “O” are
true

Some Nigerians are liars – I – false

All Nigerians are liars – A – false
No Nigerians are liars – E – true
Some Nigerians are not liars – O – true.

 O proposition being given as true, “A” is false while “I” and “E”
are undetermined.

Some Nigerians are not liars – O – true.

All Nigerians are liars – A – false
Some Nigerians are liars – I – undetermined
No Nigerians are liars – E – undetermined

 O proposition being given as false, “A” is true, “E” is false and “I”
is true.

Some Nigerians are not liars – O – false.

All Nigerians are liars – A – true
No Nigerians are liars – E – false.
Some Nigerians are liars – I – true.

10
 INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

All Nigerians are liars (Contraries) No Nigerians are liars

A E
Superalter Superalter

I O

Some Nigerians are liars Some Nigerians are not liars

(Subaltern.) Sub-contraries (Subaltern)

11
INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC: Lecturer – Dr. FRANCIS OFOR

12