Lesson 1

I. Meaning of Philosophy
-

the word Philosophy is derived from the Greek words philia (love) and Sophia (wisdom) and it means love of
wisdom
love, involves an intellectual desire, a choice and a commitment to pursue that which is loved. If Philosophy is a
kind of love, it will ultimately demand choosing wisdom as its beloved instead of surrendering to folly.
Knowledge is different from wisdom.
It has been said that we can know many things but we cannot always be wise.
Wisdom requires more than just knowledge.
Wisdom involves understanding the implications of that knowledge and its uses for oneself and others with some
purpose or value in mind.
love and wisdom is intimately linked by a commitment an act of choice to become a wise person.
The wise person habitually makes good judgments by considering the whole context of his/her decisions.
Philosophers are not people who claim to possess wisdom already. They are only lovers who are still in pursuit;
they do not have wisdom.
Philosophy is a search for meaning. A search which is more than just looking for something. It is a QUEST.
Philosophy is the comprehensive study of the truth about life, the universe and everything therein beings,
events, relationships, experiences, and meanings.
TRUTH & WISDOM are the ultimate goals of Philosophy. These philosophical goals are to be attained primarily
by human reason.

II. Origin and History of Philosophy

-

man is a rational (inquiring) animal

he developed the power of reflection, he has always posed questions about himself and the world around him and
the purpose and meaning of his existence.
According to Aristotle, man, by nature, desires to know
It was out these persistent questionings and never-ending quest for knowledge and truth that the spirit of
philosophy was born.

a. Thales he proposed that everything could be explained in terms of water.

b. Anaximander propsed the apeiron (infinite) or the unlimited or the indeterminate. He moved beyond sense
perception.
c. Anaximenes he rejects the unlimited. He proposed air as the basic composition of things.
d. Heraclitus the world is composed of changing realities.
e. Democritus the world is composed of atoms
f. Pythagoras everything is ultimately mathematical, orderly, and harmonic (including the soul)
g. Parmenides & Zeno argued that only that which is unchanging is really real so that the changing sensible
world is unreal.
III. Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy is an overarching field of study because it deals with all aspects of human experience his knowledge, his
values and aspirations, his world and environment. These however, cannot be grasped by the mind all at once. To
have a good understanding of philosophy, it is best to approach it part by part and, whenever possible, interrelate
them with one another. There are various fields of study in philosophy. Each field deals with basic issues in human
experience. These philosophical fields can be grouped according into two major categories.
A. Theoretical Fields the main concern of which is the acquisition of knowledge without any thought of applying it
for practical use. Its ultimate aim is the knowledge of truth. Here, the person contemplates and reflects about the
truth of nature as well as relationships of things.
1. Metaphysics/Ontology is the field of Philosophy that tries to understand the nature of being, of reality and of
existence in their most general aspect. It also known as philosophy of being.
2. Cosmology studies the origin and structure of the universe.
3. Philosophical Anthropology is the study of man as a person and as an existent being in the world.
4. Epistemology examines the origin, nature, extent and validity of human knowledge.
5. Theodicy is the study of God using the human reason.
B. Practical Fields studied not only to obtain knowledge and wisdom, but also to use those knowledge and
wisdom for practical purposes such as acquiring the things he needs, examining his difficulties and anxieties and
improving the prevailing social and economic conditions.

1. Semantics studies the meaning of words and linguistic forms, their functions as symbols, and the role
2.
3.
4.

they play in relation to human thoughts and behavior.

Aesthetics deals with the study of beauty of nature and the value of works of art.
Ethics investigates the right and wrong of human conduct as well as the pursuit of the good life.
Logic deals with the study of principles or laws of accurate thinking and systematic and orderly
resonating.

Lesson 2
I. The Meaning of Logic
-

the word logic was introduced by Zeno and it is derived from the Greek word logike which means systematized
and intelligible.
Logike is closely related to logos, the Greek word for thought, reason, and discourse.
Literally, logic is a systematized study of matters pertaining to thought and discourse.

II. Formal Definition of Logic

-

Logic is defined as the science and art of correct thinking/reasoning.

III. Birth and History of Logic

a. Aristotle Father of Traditional logic
- he was the first who devised logic as a system for analyzing and evaluating the correctness of
an argument.
- his logic was commonly known as syllogistic logic, the fundamental elements of which are
terms.
- arguments are evaluated as good or bad on the basis of the arrangement of terms in the
argument.
b. Chrysippus he developed logic where the fundamental elements were whole propositions
- for him, every proposition is either true or false
- he developed rules on the bases of which the truth and falsity of the proposition is determined
c.

Peter Abelard He originated the theory of universals

d. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz he developed a symbolic logic

- Father of Symbolic Logic (Modern)
IV. Types of Logic
-

Logic can be classified on the approach used in arriving at knowledge and on the validity of reasoning.

A. Approach to attaining knowledge

A.1. Deductive Logic
- a system of reasoning whereby a person argues from universal or general truth to the particular.
- it deals with deductive arguments which involve the claim that their premises provide conclusive grounds for
their conclusions.
- when this claim is warranted, the reasoning is correct and we call the argument valid.
- when this claim cannot be sustained, the reasoning is incorrect and we call the argument invalid.
- validity may be defined as: a deductive argument is valid when its premises, if true, provide conclusive
grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
- the central task is to clarify the relation between premises and conclusion in deductive arguments.
e.g. Universal:
Particular:
Particular:

All humans are mortal.

Barrack is human.
Therefore, Barrack is mortal.

Note: every deductive argument is either valid or invalid. A valid deductive argument is an argument in which the
conclusion follows necessarily from the premises; in other words, an argument such that if the premises are
assumed true, it is impossible that the conclusion be false.

A.2. Inductive Logic

- the direct opposite of deductive logic. Here, reasoning starts from sufficiently enumerated individual or specific
cases or observations and moves to the universal or general truth.
- it does not claim that its premises give conclusive grounds for the conclusion but only provide some support for
that conclusion.
- it cannot be valid or invalid but may be evaluated as being strong or weak, according to the degree of support
given to their conclusions by their premises.
- an inductive argument is one whose conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises only with
probability, this probability being a matter of degree and dependent upon what else may be the case.
e.g.

Particular:
Particular:
Particular:
Particular:
Universal:
Universal:

Rizal died.
Hitler died.
Bonifacio died.
May grandparents died.
These are all human beings.
There, it is probably true that all human beings die.

e.g. of weak inductive argument:

This crate contains one hundred mangoes.
Three mangoes selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all one hundred mangoes are ripe.
e.g. of strong inductive argument:
This crate contains one hundred mangoes.
Eighty mangoes selected at random were found to be ripe.
Therefore, probably all one hundred mangoes are ripe.
B. Validity of Reasoning
B.1. Formal Logic
- the basis of validity of argument is conformity with structure, pattern or arrangement of the constituent parts or
the rules of correct argument.
- it is valid when it conforms to the rules and structures of correct reasoning established by logic.
- it is strictly called the logic of arguments.
- it aims at rectitude (rightness) of argument.
B.2. Material Logic
- the basis of validity of argument is the thought content or the meaning and truth of the statement involved in
thinking and reasoning.
- it is called logic of propositions since it is concerned purely with the truth or falsity of propositions.
- an argument is materially valid when the ideas therein conform with the fact or reality.
- it aims at certitude.
V. Validity and Truth
-

An argument must be both valid and true

If an argument is valid and its premises are true, we may be certain that its conclusion must be true also.
When an argument is valid and all its premises are true, we call it sound.
The conclusion of a sound argument obviously must be true.
And only a sound argument can establish the truth of its conclusion.
Therefore, a sound argument is a deductive argument that is valid and has true premises.
Both conditions must be met for an argument to be sound, if either is missing, the argument is unsound.
e.g. Valid true premises true conclusion
All mammals are lunged-animals.
M
P
All whales are mammals.
S
M
Therefore, all whales are lunged animals.
S
P

All M are P.

(T)

All S are M

(T)

Therefore, all S are P.

(T)

VI. Importance of Logic

-

The study of logic is intellectually rewarding for it provides knowledge for its own sake.
It provides us knowledge and moreover makes us better thinkers.

1. A person can reason out spontaneously and clearly.

2. Logic will enable a person to recognize good from bad reasoning.
3. Help the person evaluate persuasions which use mere propaganda, psychological means rather than supporting
evidence or reason.
4. Help us make a critical examination of the reasons for accepting authority as worthy evidence.
5. Will enable the person to develop a critical attitude toward his and others assumptions and presumptions, which
serve as bases for ones argument.
6. Will provide a person a good grasp of logical terminologies.
7. Make the person aware of the ambiguity of words and of various functions of language, and will encourage him to
be more exact, and hence, more effective in the use of linguistic symbols.
8. Will motivate a person to value the systematic and objective approach in analyzing issues and in doing things.
9. Will develop in us a habit of analyzing our thoughts, or distinguishing carefully between our evidence and
conclusions.
10. It teaches us what to look for in order to test the validity of arguments.

Lesson 3
Ideas and Terms
I. Introduction
Man can know the general nature of an object or thing because he can conceptualize. He can apprehend the
nature of the thing that he perceives. For instance, we perceive a particular table. Our percept of this table is concrete,
individual and particular; and this perceptual image is formed in the inner sense, in the imagination.
Then the intellect apprehends or grasps the nature or essence of the perceived object out of the perceptual image
(otherwise known as phantasm). As soon as the intellect has abstracted or seized the essence of the perceived object, it
has already acquired or formed an idea (concept) of the perceived object.
Thus, the senses perceive the particular things and the intellect abstracts (apprehends) their nature or essence.
Then senses and the intellect help each other in the formation of ideas.
II. Idea
An idea is the intellectual image of a thing or the intellectual apprehension of a thing. Our idea of a dog, for
example, is our mental image or apprehension of an animal called dog. This idea of a dog will apply to any and all dogs
irrespective of their individual differences among themselves, provided they possess the same qualities (essence) which
constitute the idea of a dog.
Thus, percept is different from an idea. The percept is concrete, particular, and individual. It refers to this
concrete individual dog that we now perceive. The idea, on the other hand, is abstract and universal. It refers to any and
all dogs.
III. Term
- A term is the verbal expression of an idea.
- It is an articulate sound which serves as a conventional sign of an idea.
- We form ideas from the things we perceive, and then we express or manifest our ideas to others by means of
terms or words.
- a term signifies something in reality. it is also an idea or group of ideas expressed in words and taken together
as a unit.
- we express our ideas to others by means of terms or words.
- all terms are words, but not all words are terms since some words do not represent ideas. (e.g. if, from, in,
since, etc..)
- a term connotes something insofar as it means something.
- It also denotes something insofar as it refers to something.
IV. Connotation is the sum total of essential qualities which constitute a term
e.g. mother- are woman, with a child of her own.
V. Denotation is the totality of referents to which the term/idea can be applied
- a referent is an individual or thing denoted or referred to by the term.
- denotation also means the things denoted or referred to by the term.
e.g. Mother Mrs. Santos, Mrs. Lopez, Mrs. Rosales, etc
VI. Class - is the collection of the totality of things/ referents which can be correctly
referred to by the term.
e.g. lions, tigers, cheetahs, pumas, panthers are referents of the terms cats, belonged to the class of
cats.
Note: as the connotation increases, the denotation decreases and vice versa. This is because as we increase the
connotation of the term, we reduce the number of its referents and vice versa.
e.g. animal, mammal, feline, tiger, Bengal tiger. (increasing Connotation)
VII. Kinds of Terms
1. Terms as regards quantity
A. Singular term is one which stands for a single individual or object or group of persons or objects.
e.g. Mr. Santos, Quezon City, This pen, that car, I, he, she,
B.

Particular Term is one which stands for an indefinite number of individuals of a class, of persons or things.
e.g. some men, few birds, majority, 15 delegates, almost all, generally,

C.

Universal Term is one which stands for a class as a whole but also for each member of that class.
e.g. all, each, every, any, everyone, whatever, whichever, nothing, nobody, none, nothing,

D.

Collective Term refers to a group or collections of objects or individuals regarded as a unit.

e.g. family, army, crowd, society, flock, company, squad

Note: terms that are grammatically singular are not necessarily singular when they are applied in logic; they may either be
particular or universal in denotation.

2. Terms as regards incompatibility

A. Contradictory Terms those wherein one affirms what the other denies. Contradictories are so mutually
exclusive that there is no middle ground or third possibility between them.
e.g. life lifeless, right wrong, thing nothing
B. Contrary Terms are those which represent two extremes among objects of a series belonging to the same
class.
Between contraries, there is always a middle ground.
e.g. hot cold (lukewarm), black white (other colors)
C. Privative Terms are those wherein one signifies perfection and the other denies perfection in a subject
which naturally ought to posses.
e.g. wealth poverty, health sickness, sight blindness.
E.

Relative Terms are those wherein one cannot be understood without the other. The connotation of one
implies the connotation of the other.
e.g. mother child, teacher pupil, husband wife, boyfriend girlfriend

3. Terms as regards definiteness of meanings

A. Univocal term one which can be predicated of two or more individuals or things in exactly the same sense.
It admits only one meaning.
e.g. Pablo is a man. Pedro is a man. Juan is a man. Man is univocal
B. Equivocal term admits of two or more meanings. It can be predicated of many in an entirely different sense.
e.g. bark of a tree and bark of a dog
ruler, table, page
C. Analogous Term is one which is predicated of two or more things in a sense that is partly the same and
partly different.
e.g. legs of a woman and legs of a table
foot of a man and foot of a mountain
healthy person and healthy medicine.
4. Terms as regards the nature of referents
A. Concrete term is one whose referent is tangible, or can be perceived by the senses.
e.g. man, dog, house, watch, etc..
B. Abstract term is one whose referent is intangible, or can be understood only by the mind. It may denote the
property of a thing, which is considered an entity by itself.
e.g. humanity, width, height, thickness, dullness, sharpness, kindness, democracy, nationalism
C. Null or empty term is one which has no actual referents but only imaginary ones. There is nothing actually
existing to which it can be applied.
e.g. fairy, E.T. tikbalang, unicorn etc.
Definition
Importance:
- Elimination of ambiguity by establishing limits within which a word can be rightly used and understood.
Meaning:
- A statement that gives the meaning of a term
- A statement which explains what a term means.
Two Elements:
Definiendum/Definitum the term to be defined; word whose meaning has to be explained
Definiens phrase that defines the difinitum
Types of Definition:
A. Nominal Definition
- It expresses what the name means, not what the thing is.
- Usually given at the start of the debate.
Kinds of Nominal Definition:
1. Demonstrative (Ostensive)
- Indicates the meaning of a term by showing or pointing at the object.
- From the Latin word ostendere meaning to point or to show
- Often used when a term is difficult to define verbally.
- Nonlinguistic type method of defining a term.
- Primitive type of definition
E.g.
a. Table pointing at the table
b. Dollar draw the $ sign
c. Asterisk - *

d.
e.
f.
g.

Computer bring and show the computer to the class.

Fr. Rector show the picture
Tango by dancing it
Riverbank show picture

2. Synonymous
Gives the same connotation of the term
a. Contraband smuggling
b. Boo-boo mistake
c. Cordial friendly
d. Agua water (translation)
e. Nota Bene Note well
3. Etymological
Gives the origin of the word (rootword)
a. Polygamy (poly-many; gamos-marriage)
b. Polyandry (andros-man) woman has more than one husband.
c. Polygyny (gyne-woman) man has more than one wife.
d. Centepede (centum-hundred; pedis-foot) arthropod with a hundred feet
e. Theology, Philosophy, Biology, Cosmology, Atheism
B. Real Definition
Tells us what the thing is.
Two Categories:
1. Essential a definition that is constructed by genus and specific difference.
- Man is a rational animal. (Man belongs to the genus animal and is distinguished from other
species belonging to that genus by rationality)
- Triangle is a polygon with three sides.
2. Non-essential gives the more notable characteristics of a thing
2.a. Distinctive Definition (definition by property) gives the natural characteristics of a
thing that follows necessarily from the essence of the thing.
E.g:
Man is capable of distinguishing what is morally right and morally wrong
Oxygen is a gas1.105 times heavy as air.
2.b. Genetic definition furnishes the mode of the origin of a thing.
It describes how something is produced.
Jeep comes from GP, meaning General Purpose which was the original Army designation
for the now famous vehicle.
Earthquake is the trembling of the land surface due to the faulting of the rocks.
Tsunami is a long high sea wave caused by underwater earthquake.
Sneeze is a sudden involuntary expulsion of air from the nose and mouth caused by
irritation of the nostrils.
2.c. Describes a by its efficient and final cause.
Efficient cause-gives the producer of a thing.
Web page a virtual page made by a webmaster.
Fallopian tube named after Italian Gabrielle Fallopus.
Les Mirabiles is written by Victor Hugo.
Final Cause gives the purpose/end on account of which a thing is produced.
Magnet is a piece of iron that attracts/repels iron.
Oratory is a chapel for private devotion.
Marriage is a natural institution for communion of persons and for procreation.
Rules of a good definition:
1. A definition should avoid vagueness and ambiguity.
E.g. Net is a reticulated fabric decussated at regular intervals with interstices and intersections.
Blush- is a temporary erythema and calorific effulgence of the psysiognomy, aetiotized by the perceptiveness of
the sensorium, in a predicament of inequilibrity from a sense of shame, anger or other cause, eventuating in a
paresis of the vaso-motorial, mascular filaments of the facial capillaries, whereby, being divested of their elasticity,
they become suffused with a radiance emanating from an intimidated praecordia.
2. Definition should not be circular.
Shopkeeper keeper of the house.
Lamppost post of a lamp.
Painter anyone who paints.
3. Definition should not be needlessly negative.
Chair is not a table.
Heaven - is not hell.
4. Definition must be precise, i.e., it must not be too narrow or too broad.
Too broad definition:
a. A square is a four-sided polygon.
b. Knife is an instrument for cutting.
c. Jupiter is a planet.
d. Automobile is any vehicle that has wheels.

Too narrow definition:

a. Woman is a married mother.
b. Doctor is a surgeon.
Lesson 4
Categorical Propositions
I. Meaning of Judgment and Propositions
A.

Judgment is the mental enunciation/ pronouncement regarding the agreement or disagreement between
ideas.
- it is an act of the mind affirming or denying an idea by another idea.
Truth and falsity resides in the judgment, for it expresses the relationship between the mind and reality.
- If a judgment agrees with reality, it is true; otherwise it is false.

B.

Proposition is the verbal expression of a judgment.

- it is a statement in which something is affirmed or denied.
- As a statement, it is a sentence, word or group of words that expresses a complete thought.
- All propositions are sentences, but not all sentences are propositions.
- A sentence does not always affirm of deny something. (interrogative, imperative, exclamatory sentences)
- Only a declarative sentence expresses an assertion or denial about something; hence a proposition.
- There are 2 types of proposition (Categorical and hypothetical)

C.

Categorical Proposition
- one which gives direct assertion of agreement or disagreement between the subject term and predicate
term.
- It is called categorical because it declares something unconditionally.
- It deals with the relationship between categories and classes of things.

D.

Elements and Logical Structure of a Categorical Proposition

- a categorical proposition has four elements.
D.1. Quantifier
D.2. Subject Term is that which something is affirmed or denied.
D.3. Predicate Term is that which is affirmed or denied by the subject term.
D.4. Copula is the linking verb is, am, was, were or is not, am not, was not, are not expressing the agreement
or disagreement between the subject term and the predicate term.
-

the logical structure or standard form refers to the pattern or arrangement of the essential components of the
proposition into a logical unit.
Logical structure of a categorical proposition is Q S C P
E.g. All birds are winged animals.
Q S C
P

Some irresponsible citizens of this country are government officials themselves.

Q
S
C
P
Some wild animals in Mt. Makiling are not endangered species protected by the government.
Q
S
C
P
II. Quality of Categorical Proposition
The quality of a categorical proposition consists in the nature of proposition as either affirmative or negative.
A.
B.

Affirmative Proposition is one where there is agreement between the subject term and predicate term.
e.g. All Filipinos are Asians.
All Filipinos are hospitable.
Some dogs are cute.
Some Ilocanos are music lover.
Negative Proposition is one in which there is a disagreement between the subject and predicate term.
e.g. All Filipinos are not Americans.
No Germans are sweet lovers.

III. Quantity of Categorical Proposition

The quantity of a proposition consists in the nature of the proposition as either universal or particular.
A.

Singular term is one which stands for a single individual or object or group of persons or objects.
e.g. Mr. Santos, Quezon City, This pen, that car, I, he, she,

B.

Particular Term is one which stands for an indefinite number of individuals of a class, of persons or things.
e.g. some men, few birds, majority, 15 delegates, almost all, generally,

C.

Universal Term is one which stands for a class as a whole but also for each member of that class.
e.g. all, each, every, any, everyone, whatever, whichever, nothing, nobody, none, nothing,

D.

Collective Term refers to a group or collections of objects or individuals regarded as a unit.

e.g. family, army, crowd, society, flock, company, squad

Note: terms that are grammatically singular are not necessarily singular when they are applied in logic; they may either be
particular or universal in denotation.
A. Universal Proposition one whose subject term is universal. It applies distributively to each and all of the
referents of the subject term.
e.g. All dogs are animals.
No squares are circles.
All men are mortals.
No students are late comers.
B. Particular Proposition one whose subject term is particular. It applies to an indefine number of individuals
referred to by the subject term.
e.g. Some students are scholars.
Some delegates are not members of the club.
IV. The Four Standard Form Categorical Propositions
Combining the quality and quantity of propositions, we come up with four standard form categorical propositions.
The standard form consists of four parts: Q S C P
1. Universal Affirmative (A)
- the form is All S is/are P.
- this means that the whole of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
e.g. All cats are animals.
2. Universal Negative (E)
- No S is/are P. or All S are not P.
- This means that the whole of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
e.g. NO athletes are vegetarians.
All stars are not planet.
3. Particular Affirmative (I)
- the for is Some S is/are P.
- This means that a part of the subject class is included in the predicate class.
e.g. Some congressmen are corrupt.
4. Particular Negative (O)
- Some S is/are not P or Not all S are P or S are not all P.
- This means that a part of the subject class is excluded in the predicate class.
e.g. Some students are not scholars.
Not all students are scholars
Students are not all scholars.

QUALITY

A
All S are P

E
No S are P

I
Some S are P

O
Some S are not P

QUANTITY

V. Reduction to Standard Categorical Form Proposition

The logical structure is the basic arrangement of the parts, namely, the S-C-P of a categorical proposition. Many
propositions do not manifest or display their logical structure; for instance, Jose loves Josefina. In this
proposition, Jose is the subject, the word loves expresses both the copula and a part of the predicate. In here
there is a need to reduce the proposition. (Jose is the lover of Josefina or Jose is Josefinas lover)
The reduction of an ordinary statement to the logical structure/ standard categorical form consists in rewording it
in a manner to conform to the subject-copula-predicate form. The purpose of reduction to the logical
structure/ standard categorical form is to bring out the hidden copula and predicate of a complex logical
unit so as to facilitate certain logical processes.
VII. Rules in Reducing Ordinary Statements to Logical Structure/ Standard Categorical Form
1. Reduce general statements as universal propositions, unless the statement points to a particular usage.
e.g.
Dogs are mammals.
A: All dogs are mammals
Fish are not birds.
E: No fish are birds.
Filipinos are hospitable people.
I: Some Filipinos are hospitable people.
Cats are not domesticated animals.
O: Some cats are not domesticated animals.

2. Add the missing complement to an adjective or to a describing phrase to show that they refer to classes. The
compliment(s) to be added are called parameters. Common words used as parameters are beings, entities,
realities, things, objects, persons, people, places, times, animals, etc.
e.g. All lions are fierce.
A: All lions fierce animals/ All lions are fierce cats.
All mothers love their children.
A: All mothers are persons who love their children.
Some students are late.
I: Some students are persons who came late.
Some students are late comers.
Some people work and study at the same time.
I: Some people are persons who
work and study at the same time./ Some people are working students.
3. Singular statements should be treated as universal propositions which according to some logicians can be
reduced by the use of the phrase identical to and a corresponding parameter.
e.g. James is Pilot. A: All persons identical to James are pilots.
That dog is mine. A: All dogs identical to that dog are dogs of mine.
All dogs identical to that dog are my dogs.
This student is not lazy. E: No students identical to this student are last students.
4. Quantifiers that refer to universal or particular properties should be replaced by all or no or some respectively.
4.a. every, any, everybody, always, anything, whoever, whatever, wherever, etc. all. The proposition becomes
automatically an A proposition as long as the original proposition is affirmative .
e.g. Everybody plays. A: All person are persons who play./ All persons are players.
Whatever is wood will float. A: All wooden materials are floating things.
A responsible person is always successful. A: All responsible persons are successful
individuals.
4.b. no, no one, nobody, never, hardly, nothing, none, etc.. no. The proposition is reduced
automatically as E as long as the copula is not negative.
e.g. Nobody listens. E: No persons are listeners.
Nothing is impossible with God. E: No things are impossible things with God.
My friends never come late. E: No friends of mine are latecomers.
4.c. many, several, a few, certain, most, twenty, 99% majority some.
e.g. Most stones are metamorphous. I: Some stones are metamorphic rocks.
20 priests are sent to Rwanda. I: Some priests are missionaries to Rwanda.
Majority of the members does not favor the proposal. I: Some members are persons
who does not favor the proposal.
4.d. Special Case: A statement which begins with few with out an article a before it
must be reduced into an O proposition if it is in the affirmative sense, and I proposition
if it is in the negative sense.
e.g. Few people are supporters of Charter Change. O: Some people are not Charter
Change Supporters.
Few students are not members of the choir. I: Some students are choir members.
5. Exclusive statements should be reduced into A proposition by dropping the exclusive quantifier and reversing the
order of the subject and the predicate of the original statement. NONE, BUT, ONLY, and NONE EXCEPT are
word-indicators of exclusivity.
e.g. None but men are priests. A: All priests are men.
Only citizens are voters. A: All voters are citizens.
Non except Bedans are participants. A: All participants are Bedans.
N.B. When ONLY appears at the middle of the statement, it must be restructured so that it
appears at the beginning.
e.g. The visitors can use only the guest restroom.
1.a. Only the guest restrooms can be used by the visitors.
1.b. A: All restrooms that the visitor can used are guest restrooms.
1.c. A: All restrooms that can be used by the visitors are guest restrooms.
6. Statements beginning with the Only are reduced differently from those beginning with only. It is simply
reduced to an A proposition with out reversing the order of the original statement.
e.g. The only fruits that are available are kiwis. A: All fruits that are available are kiwis.
Accountants are the only ones who will be hired for the job.
1.1. The only ones who will be hired for the job are accountants.
1.2. A: All persons who will be hired for the job are accountants.
7. Exceptive statements must be reduced into an E. All except and all but are words indicators of exceptivity.
e.g. All except students of SBC are members of the club. E: No SBC students are
club members.
All but minors are admitted. E: No minors are persons admitted.
8. Almost all and Almost everyone, statements should be reduced into an I proposition if affirmative or O
proposition if negative.

e.g. Almost every member was present. I: Some members were persons present.
Almost all participants are not qualified. O: Some participants are not qualified
persons.
9. not all and not every statements should be reduced into an O proposition; while not any into an E proposition.
e.g. Not all representatives are lawyers. O: Some representatives are not lawyers.
Not every executive is a good leader. O: Some executives are not good leaders.
Not any of the graduates passed the board. E: No graduates are board passers.
10. there are statements should be reduced into an I proposition. there are no statements are reduced into an E
proposition, while there are.. who/ which/ that arereduced into an I proposition and there are who/ which/
that are not .statements are reduced into an O proposition. The noun being modified must be used as the
subject and the adjective/ modifier must be the predicate except in the there arewho/which/that are.. and
there are who/which/that are not.. statements.
e.g. There are inefficient teachers. I: Some teachers are inefficient persons.
There are no capitalist peasants. E: No peasants are capitalists.
There are no gases which are inert. I: Some gases are inert gases.
There are socialists who are not pacifists. O: Some socialists are not pacifists.
11. A. If both the antecedent and consequent are affirmative, the statement in reduced into an A proposition with the
antecedent as the subject and consequent as the predicate.
e.g. If is cat, then it is a mammal.
A: All animals that are cats are animals that are mammals.
A: All cats are mammals.
12. B. If either the antecedent or consequent is negative, the statement is reduced into an E proposition.
e.g. If an animal has four legs, then it is not a bird.
E: No animals that have four legs are animals that are birds.
E: No four legged animals are birds.
12 C. In the case of if..then statements having both negative antecedent and consequentm a rule of transposition is
employed wherein the antecedent and consequent may switch places and are stated affirmatively. After that, one
now use rule 11.A to reduce the proposition.
e.g. If something is not valuable, then it is not scarce.
If something is scarce, then it is valuable.
A: All things that are scarce are things that are valuable.
A: All scarce things are valuable things.
13. cannot be both,it is impossible to be both,none/ nobody/ nothingcan be both must be reduced into an
E proposition. This statements are connected by and. We call them conjuncts.
e.g. One cannot be both a pessimist and an optimist. E: No Pessimists are optimists.
It is impossible for a person to be both good and bad. E: No good persons are bad
persons.
Nothing can be both hard and soft at the same time. E: No hard things are soft things.
Lesson 5
Hypothetical Proposition
I. Hypothetical Proposition does not declare an unconditional affirmation or denial
- expresses a relation of dependence such as opposition or a likeness between two
classes.
Three Types
1. Conditional Proposition is a compound proposition of which one part asserts something as true on the
condition that the other part is true.
e.g.

If a man is farsighted, he needs eyeglasses.

If dry weather continues, the harvest will be poor.

- it is joined by IF, UNLESS, WHEN, WHERE, SUPPOSE, IN CASE

- it is sometimes called an if-then proposition because of its usual structure.
1.a. Antecedent is generally introduced by the word if or its equivalent. It contains the condition.
1.b. Consequent expresses the statement that follows the acceptance of the condition.
- it depends upon the presence of the condition.
- unless is equivalent to if not.
e.g. Unless you change your life, you will end up in hellfire.
2. Disjunctive Proposition is one that presents various alternatives and asserts that an indeterminate one of
them is true. Its subject or predicate consists of parts, which exclude each other.
- it is sometimes called either-or statements

- the parts are called disjuncts

e.g. Either Pablo or Pedro is dishonest.
A body is either in motion or at rest.
Types of Disjunction
a. Complete one whose parts are mutually exclusive.
- the disjuncts can neither be true nor false at the same time
- if one disjuct is true the other must be false and vice versa
- no middle ground or third possibility between them
e.g. life lifeless, right wrong, animal non-animal, close open,
AN individual is either honest or dishonest.
It is either raining or not raining.
b. Incomplete parts are not mutually exclusive.
- There is middle ground
- there is other possibility
e.g.
hot-cold (lukewarm)
happy-sad (not so sad)
black-white (green)
left-right (middle)
John is either sitting or writing.
Either the production is big or small.
3. Conjunctive Proposition one which denies that two contrary predicates together can be true of the same
subject together at the same time.
- it denies the simultaneous possibility of two alternatives.
- Parts are called conjuncts
- Conjuncts are joined by and
e.g.

You cannot stand and sit at the same time.

No man can serve both God and mammon.
Lesson 6
Meaning of Reasoning and Inference

I. Reasoning is a mental process whereby we pass from what we know (known) to what we do not know (unknown).
- reasoning always starts with something given or what we know.
- we cannot reasoning from nothing.
- the starting point of what we know is called the known which constitutes the premises,
evidences, proofs, grounds, or reasons from which the unknown (what we do not know) can be inferred.
- that which is inferred is called the conclusion.
II. Inference is a mental process by which we pass from one or more proposition to some other propositions
consequently related to the former.
B. Types of Inference

1. Immediate Inference is one in which we pass immediately or directly from a single premise to a conclusion. It
is a process whereby we pass from one proposition to another which is different but which necessarily follows
from it.
e.g. No Filipinos are Americans. Therefore, No Americans are Filipinos.
Some students are not responsible. Therefore, some students are irresponsible.
It is true that All Filipinos are Asians, then to say that No Filipinos are Asians is
false.
Since immediate inference involves no advance in knowledge, it is inference only in the broad sense, or improper
sense.

2. Mediate Inference is one in which we derive a conclusion from two or more premises taken jointly. It is a
process of the mind whereby we pass from one proposition to another with the aid of the Third.
e.g. All Illongos are Visayans.
Mr. Casono is an Illongo.
Threfore, Mr. Casono is a Visayan.
Mediate inference draws a conclusion from two propositions (instead of one) and does involve an advance in
knowledge. Consequently, mediate inference is the strict, or proper sense.

III. Argument is an attempt to show that something is true by providing evidence for it.
e.g. To kill a person is immoral.
Capital Punishment is the killing of persons
Therefore, capital punishment is immoral.
Consider this:
The Abu Sayyafs are notorious Muslim bandits.
The Philippine trade deficit is rising.
Therefore, capital punishment is immoral. (Bad argument)
Lesson 7
Square of Opposition

Oppositional Inference or logical opposition (Square of opposition) is an analytical device designed by Aristotle to
represent the different types of oppositionl relationships among the four types of oppositional relationships among
the four types of categorical propositions.
It provides logical basis for valid inferences between one statement and another as a result of the statements
form.
Logical opposition means the state of repugnance, which exists between two propositions having the same
subject and predicate but differing in quantity and quality or in both quantity and quality

Types of Logical Opposition/ Square of Opposition

1. CONTRARY OPPOSITION
- exists between two universal propositions that differ in quality.
- It consists of A-E
- The contrary of A is E and vice versa.
e.g. (A) All Filipinos are Christians. (E) No Filipinos are Christians.
(E) No Filipinos are Christians. (A) All Filipinos are Christians.
LAW OF CONTRARIETY: Contraries cannot be both true but may be both false.
- if one is TRUE (T), the other must be FALSE (F);
- if one is FALSE (F), the other must be DOUBTFUL/UNKNOWN/UNDERTERMINED (?)
e.g. if No presidents are aliens is true, then its contrary is All presidents are
aliens is false.
If No presidents are aliens is false, then its contrary is All presidents are
aliens is doubtful.
2. CONTRADICTORY OPPOSITION
- exists between two propositions that differ in both quality and quantity
- it consists of A-O and E-I.
- the contradictory of A is O and vice versa
- the contradictory of E is I and vice versa
e.g. (A) All Filipinos are Christians (O) Some Filipinos are not Christians.
(E) No Filipinos are Christians. (I) Some Filipinos are Christians.
LAW OF CONTRADICTION Contradictories cannot be both true and both false at the same time.
- if one is TRUE (T), its contradictory must be FALSE (F)
- if one is FALSE (F), its contradictory must be TRUE (T)
3. SUBALTERN OPPOSITION
- exists between two oppositions that differ in quantity
- it consists of A-I and E-O.
- the subaltern of A is I and vice versa.
- The subaltern of E is O and vice versa.
e.g. (A) All Filipinos are Christians. (I) Some Filipinos are Christians.
(E) No Filipinos are Christians. (O) Some Filipinos are not Christians.
LAW OF SUBALTERATION
a. The TRUTH of the UNIVERSAL (A,E) implies the truth of the PARTICULAR (I,O), but not vice-versa.
* If the universal is TRUE (T), the particular must also be TRUE (T)
* but if the particular is TRUE (T), the universal is DOUBTFUL (?)
- what is true of the logical whole is also true of the logical part, but what is true of the logical part need not be
true of the logical whole.
e.g. (A) All presidents are aliens.(T) (I) Some presidents are aliens. (T)
(E) No presidents are aliens. (T) (O) Some presidents are not aliens. (T)
(I) Some presidents are aliens (T) (A) All presidents are aliens. (?)
(O) Some presidents are not aliens.(T) (E) No presidents are aliens. (?)

b. The FALSITY of the PARTICULAR involves the FALSITY of the UNIVERSAL, but not vice versa.
* If the particular is FALSE (F), the universal must also be FALSE (F)
* If the universal is FALSE (F), the particular is DOUBTFUL (?)
* What is denied of the part is also denied of the whole. But what is false of the whole need not be false of its
part.
e.g. (I) Some presidents are alien (F) (A) All presidents are aliens (F)
(O) Some presidents are not aliens (F) (E) No presidents are aliens (F)
(A) All presidents are aliens (F) (I) Some presidents are aliens (?)
(E) No presidents are aliens (F) (O) Some presidents are not aliens (?)
4. SUBCONTRARY OPPOSITION
- exists between two particular propositions that differ in quality.
- Consists of I-O
e.g. Some Filipinos are Christians Some Filipinos are not Christians.
LAW OF SUBCONTRARIETY
- subcontraries cannot be both false, but may be both true.
- *if one is FALSEB (F), the other must be TRUE (T).
- * if one is TRUE (T), the other is DOUBTFUL (?)
e.g. (I) Some presidents are aliens (F) (O) Some presidents are not aliens (T)
(O) Some presidents are not aliens (F) (I) Some presidents are aliens (T)
(I) Some presidents are aliens (T) (O) Some presidents are not aliens (?)
(O) Some presidents are not aliens (T) (I) Some presidents are aliens (?)
Summary of TRUTH-VALUES
GIVEN
T
A
F
T
E
F
T
I
F
T
O
F

A
-----------F
?
?
F
F
T

E
F
?
--------------F
T
?
F

I
T
?
F
T
--------------?
T

O
F
T
T
?
?
T
---------------

Lesson 8
EDUCTION & EQUIVALENCE
I. Meaning of Eduction
Eduction is an inferential process whereby we pass from one proposition to another without changing the meaning
of the original proposition.
In eduction, the two propositions speak of the same truth, and either one is directly inferred from the another.
e.g.

All allegations are true. No allegations are false.

Nothing is impossible with God. Everything is possible with God.
Some actors are drug addicts. Some drug addicts are actors.

II. Types of Eduction

A. Conversion a kind of eduction in which the subject and predicate of a given proposition are transposed with out
changing the quality and truth of the proposition. The original proposition is called convertened and the inferred
or new proposition is called converse.
e.g.

All surgeons are doctors. Some doctors are surgeons.

Convertened
Converse

Rules of Simple Conversion:

1. Interchange the subject and predicate.
2. Retain the quality of the proposition.
E E = No S are P No P are S.
e.g.
No cats are turtles. No turtles are cats.
No Human being is an angel. No angel is a human being.
I I = Some S are P Some P are S.
e.g.
Some houses are blue. Some blue (things) are houses.
Some books are encyclopedias. Some encyclopedias are books.
A A = All S are P All P are S.

Rule in Partial Conversion.

1. Change the quantity of the proposition.
A I = All S are P. Some P are S.
e.g.
All lawyers are professionals. Some professionals are lawyers.
All metals are conductors. Some conductors are metals.
Note: O proposition cannot be converted.
B. Obversion a kind of eduction whereby an affirmative proposition is stated negatively and a negative proposition
may be stated affirmatively by the addition or subtraction of one or two negations.
The original proposition is called the obvertend, and the new proposition is called the obverse.
Rules:
1. Retain the subject of the obvertend in the obverse. Use the same subject as in the original proposition.
2. Retain the quantity of the proposition.
3. Change the quality of the proposition.
4. Use the predicate that is the contradictory of the predicate of the obvertend. Contradict the predicate of the
original proposition.
(Note: The contradictory of a noun is just its simple negation by adding the prefix non to it. For adjectives there
are corresponding prefixes and suffixes to form their contradictories: il, un, ir, im, in, a, less, etc)
Ways of Obversion:
A E = All S are P. No S are non-P.
e.g.
All judges are fallible. No judges are infallible.
S
P
S
non-P
All angels are immortal. No angels are mortal.
E A = No S are P All S are non-P.
No ideas are material. All ideas are immaterial.
No resources are unlimited. All resources are limited.
I O = Some S are O Some S are not non-P.
Some students are good dancers. Some students are not bad dancers.
Some students are activists. Some students are not non-activitsts.
O I = Some S are not P Some S are non-P.
Some Lovers are not faithful. Some lovers are unfaithful.
Some contracts are not irrevocable. Some contracts are revocable.
C. Combined Form: Contraposition
It is the formulation of a new proposition whose subject is the contradictory of the original predicate. It is the
combination of conversion and obversion. The original proposition is called contraponened, and the new
proposition is the contraposit.
C.1. Partial Contraposition = O C
C.2. Complete Contraposition = O C O

Lesson 9
CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM
I. Categorical Syllogism
It is a piece of deductive, mediate inference which consists of three categorical propositions, the first two of which
are premises and the third of which is the conclusion.
The categorical syllogism consists of three and only three propositions and three and only three terms.
II. Elements and Structures of Categorical Syllogism.
Three Propositions
1. major premise
2. minor premise
3. conclusion
-

Three Terms
1. major term (P)
2. minor term (S)
3. middle term (M)

the major premise is one where in the major term (P) is compared with the middle term (M).
the minor premise is one where in the minor term (S) is compared with the middle term (M).
the conclusion is the consequent proposition, the result of reasoning.

- the major term is the term that stands for a more universal class.
- the minor term is the term that stands for the less universal class.

- the middle term is the term of comparison, the common standard reference between the minor term and major
term.
e.g.

Major Premise: All pine trees are conifers.

P
M
Minor Premise: No mango trees are conifers.
S
M
Conclusion:
No mango trees are pine trees.
S
P
III. Form of Categorical Syllogism
The form of categorical syllogism consists of the so-called figure and mood.
A. Figure refers to the proper arrangement (position) of the middle term (M) with respect to the major term and
the minor term in the premises.
Figure 1: The middle term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the minor premise.
MP
SM
SP

All Filipinos are Malayans.

All Tagalogs are Filipinos
Therefore, all Tagalogs are Malayans.

Figure 2: The middle term is the predicate of both premises.

PM
SM
SP

All Filipinos are Malayans.

No Africans are Malayans.
Therefore, no Africans are Filipinos.

Figure 3: The middle term is the subject of both premises.

MP
Some Filipinos are Tagalogs.
MS
All Filipinos are Asians.
SP
Therefore, some Asians are Tagalogs.
Figure 4: The middle term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the minor premise.
PM
MS
SP

All Tagalogs are Filipinos.

No Filipinos are Caucasians.
Therefore, no Caucasians are Tagalogs.

B. Mood refers to the proper arrangement of the premises and conclusion according to the quantity and
quality. (A, E, I, O).
A = All doves are birds.
E = No dogs are birds.
E = Therefore, no dogs are doves.
(In this example, the mood of the syllogism is AEE)
A = All human beings are free.
A = All Teachers are human beings.
A = Therefore, all teachers are free.
(The mood is AAA)
A = All students are intelligent.
I = Some students are weirdoes.
I = Thus, some weirdoes are intelligent.
(The mood is AII)
A = No Christians are communists.
I = Some communists are peacemakers.
O = Thus, some peacemakers are not Christians.
(The mood is EIO)
Valid Moods:
bArbArA
cElArEnt
dArII
fErIO

FIGURE 1
(AAA)
(EAE)
(AII)
(EIO)

FIGURE 2
cEsArE
(EAE)
cAmEstrEs (AEE)
fEstInO
(EIO)
bArOcO
(AOO)

FIGURE 3
dArAptI (AAI)
dIsAmIs (IAI)
dAtIsI
(AII)
fElAptOn (EAO)
bOcArdO (OAO)
fErIsOn (EIO)

FIGURE 4
brAmAntIp (AAI)
cAmErEs
(AEE)
dImArIs
(IAI)
fEsApO
(EAO)
frEsIsOn
(EIO)

IV. The Eight General Syllogistic Rules

1. There must only be THREE TERMS in the syllogism. They are the minor, major, and middle terms.
Violation of this rule is either: Fallacy of Four Terms (Fallacy of Equivocation) or Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle.
a. Fallacy of Four Terms
e.g. All Filipinos are Asians
All tagalogs are human beings.
Therefore, all Tagalogs are Asians.
b. Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle
Bishops move diagonally.
Msgr. Drona is a Bishop.
Therefore, Msgr. Drona moves diagonally.
2. Neither the major nor the minor term may have a greater extension in the conclusion than in the premise.
Fallacies Committed:
a. Fallacy of Illicit Minor Term committed when the minor term is universal in the conclusion,
whereas it is only particular in the premise.
Eg. All Igorots are indigenous people.
But all Igorots are Filipinos.
Therefore, all Filipinos are indigenous people.
All apples are rich in vitamins.
But all rich in vitamins are healthy foods.
Therefore, all healthy foods are apples.

A: Mu + Pp
A: Mu + Sp
A: Su + Pp
A: Pu + Mp
A: Mu + Sp
A: Su + Pp

b. Fallacy of Illicit Major Term committed when the major term is universal in the conlusion, whereas
it is only particular in the premise.
Eg. All Filipnos are Asians.
But some Filipinos are not Tagalogs.
Therefore, some Tagalogs are not Asians.
All news papers are printed materials.
But no T-shirts are news papers.
Therefore, no T-shirts are printed materials.

A: Mu + Pp
O: Mp Su
O: Sp Pu
A: Mu + Pp
E: Su Mu
E: Su Pu

3. The middle term should not occur in the conclusion.

Fallacy: Fallacy of Misplaced Middle term
e.g. A goodess is a female.
But a goddess is a deity.
Therefore, a goddess is a female deity.

4. The middle term must be distributed at least once in the premises.

Fallacy: Fallacy of Undistributed Middle Term
e.g. All sharks are fish.
But all mudfish are fish.
Therefore, all mudfish are sharks.
5. Two affirmative premises cannot give a negative conclusion.
Fallacy of Negative Conclusion drawn from Affirmative Premises
e.g. Some flowers are orchids.
But all flowers are living things.
Therefore, no living things are orchids.
6. From two negative premises, nothing follows.
Fallacy: Fallacy of Negative Premises
e.g. No tenor is a soprano.
But no soprano is a baritone.
Therefore, no Baritone is a tenor.
7. From two particular premises, nothing follows.
A. If both premises are affirmative, then the subjects and the predicates are particular.
e.g. Some men are gays.
But some gays are artists.
Therefore, some artists are men. (Fallacy of undistributed middle)
B. If both premises are negative, then the syllogism violates rule #6.
e.g. Some wives are not naggers.
But some wives are not mature.

then what????
C. If one premise is affirmative and the other is negative, then we have the following fallacious syllogisms.
e.g. Some cats are pets.
But some pythons are not cats.
Therefore, some pythons are not pets. (Fallacy of Illicit Major Term)
Some horse back-riders are not males.
But some drivers are horse back-riders.
Therefore, some drivers are not males. (Fallacy of Undistributed Middle)
8. The conclusion follows the weaker premise.
The weaker premise is either particular or negative.
A. If one premise is universal and the other is particular, the conclusion should be particular; otherwise it will
commit the Fallacy of Universal Conclusion drawn from a Particular Premise.
e.g. All mongoloids are mentally-retarded.
But some mongoloids are special children.
Therefore, all special children are mentally-retarded. (Fallacy of Illicit Minor term)
B. If one premise is negative and the other is affirmative, the conclusion should be negative; otherwise, the
syllogism commits the Fallacy of Affirmative Conclusion drawn from a Negative Premise.
e.g. All swimmers are athletes.
But some scholars are not athletes.
Therefore, some scholars are swimmers.
N.B.
A = Subject is Universal; Predicate is Particular
E = both Subject and Predicate are Universal
I = both Subject and Predicate are Particular.
O = Subject is Particular; Predicate is Universal
+ Affirmative proposition
- Negative proposition
Lesson 10
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM
I. Hypothetical Syllogism
Is one whose major premise is a hypothetical proposition, while its minor premise and conclusion are categorical
propositions.
II. Types of Hypothetical Proposition
A. Conditional Syllogism
- a conditional syllogism is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition, while its minor premise and
conclusions are categorical proposition.
e.g. If it rains, then the ground is wet. (major premise)
It rains. (minor premise)
Therefore, the ground is wet. (conclusion)
A.1. Two Valid Moods of Conditional Syllogism
a. Modus Ponens: if the antecedent is accepted in the minor premise, the consequent must also be
accepted in the conclusion.
- the truth of the antecedent implies the truth of the consequent.
e.g.
If it rains, then the road is muddy.
It rains.
Therefore, the road is muddy. (Valid)
If the rain does not stop, then we postpone the game.
But the rain does not stop.
Therefore, we will postpone the game. (Valid)
If it rains, then the road will be muddy.
It does not rain.
Therefore, the road will not be muddy. (Invalid)
NOTE: Violation of Modus Ponens arises when the antecedent is rejected (negated) in the minor
premise. The violation is called Fallacy of Rejecting the Antecedent.
b. Modus Tollens: if the consequent is rejected in the minor premise, the antecedent must also be
rejected in the conclusion.
- the falsity of consequent implies the falsity of the antecedent.

e.g.

If it rains, then the road will be muddy.

The road is not muddy.
Therefore, it did not rain. (Valid)
If summer does not last long, then the creek will not dry up.
But the creek dried up.
Therefore, summer lasted long. (Valid)
If it rains, then the road will be muddy.
But the road is muddy.
Therefore, it rained.
(Invalid)

NOTE: Violation of Modus Tollens arises when the consequent is accepted in the minor premise.
The violation is called Fallacy of Accepting the Consequent.
B. Disjunctive Syllogism
It is one whose major premise is a disjunctive proposition, while its minor premise and
conclusion are categorical propositions.
B.1. Valid Moods of Disjunctive Syllogism
a. Complete Disjunction: is one whose parts are mutually exclusive, i.e., they contradict each other.
No other third or other possibilities in this kind of disjunction.
Two valid Moods are possible:
a.1. Ponendo Tollens: Posit (accept, affirm) one disjucnt in the minor premise and sublate (reject,
deny) the other in the conclusion.
e.g. The prisoner is either sane or insane.
But he is sane
Therefore, he is not insane. (Valid)
The prisoner is either sane or insane.
But he is sane.
Therefore, he is insane. (Invalid)
a.2. Tollendo Ponens: Sublate one disjunct in the minor and posit the other in the conclusion.
e.g. The witness is either honest or dishonest.
But she is not honest.
Therefore, she is dishonest. (Valid)
The witness is either honest or dishonest.
But she is not dishonest.
Therefore, she is honest. (Valid)
The witness is either honest or dishonest.
But she is not honest.
Therefore, she is no dishonest. (Invalid)
Note: Violation of these rules would mean Violation of Ponendo Tollens and Violation of
Tollendo Ponens respectively.
b. Incomplete Disjunction: is one whose parts are not mutually exclusive. There are other
possibilities aside from the parts mentioned.
There is only one valid mood possible in this type, which is Ponendo Tollens: Posit one
disjucnt in the minor premise and sublate the other disjunct in the conclusion.
C. Conjunctive Syllogism
One whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition, while its minor premise and conclusion are
categorical proposition.
There is only one valid mood in this type of hypothetical syllogism. The mood is Ponendo Tollens: Posit
one conjunct in the minor premise and sublate the other in the conclusion.
e.g.

The accused could not have been in Manila and Laguna at the same time.
But he was in Laguna.
Therefore, he was not in Manila. (Valid)
A Politician cannot be both congressman and senator.
But Atty. Supotski is not a congressman.
Therefore, he is a senator.
(Invalid)

Lesson 11
FALLACIES
I. Introduction
Knowledge of the logical principles of correct reasoning is not enough. Equally significant is to know the violations
of these logical principles so that we may know how they are violated and how we may not violate them ourselves.
II. Definition of Fallacy
The word fallacy is derived from the Latin word fallere, which means to DECIEVE.
It is a type of argument that may seem to be valid but which proves, upon examination, not to be so. At the same
time that it conceals error, it projects an apparent truth.
Furthermore, it means erroneous or false reasoning which has the appearance of truth. It is an illogical,
misleading and deceptive argument. It is an error resulting from the violation of any rule of logic.
Sophism or sophistry a fallacy committed with the intention to deceive or mislead an opponent.
Paralogism when a fallacy is employed unknowingly or through the ignorance of the rules of reasoning.
Insofar as fallacy is an error of reasoning, there is no established classification of the ways in which men may
commit errors. Hence, there is no universally acceptable classification of fallacies, for no classification of erroneous
arguments is entirely satisfactory. It would be impossible to draw up a complete list of errors, for they are indeed multiple.
Our classification of fallacies here is, therefore, arbitrary. Infact, members of the classification sometimes overlap.
III. Classifications of Fallacies
A. Formal or Logical fallacies errors that arise from the violations of the rules of definition, division, conversion,
obversion, and the categorical and hypothetical syllogisms.
- it involves an error in the form, arrangement or technical structure of an argument.
- It is committed mainly due to lack of skill in reasoning, and this is turn is due to lack of training in the
logical process.
- It presents errors involving the forms of good arguments such as if the premises are true, the
conclusion cannot be false.
B. Informal or material fallacies - those that arise from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of terms
used, from a wrong assumption of facts, or from ignoring the issue.
Fallacies of Language (Fallacies of Ambiguous Language)
Fallacies of Language (Fallacies of Ambiguous Language)
- This arises due to lack of preciseness in the words, phrases, or sentences used to express thoughts.
A. Fallacy of equivocation- consists of using the same term with different meanings.
- this is also called fallacy of Four Terms
e.g.
What is natural is good.
But to make mistakes is natural.
Therefore, to make mistakes is good.
A king moves one square in any direction;
But Solomon is a king
Therefore, Solomon moves one square in any direction.
A tissue is a piece of thin soft absorbent paper.
A cell is a tissue.
Therefore, a cell is a piece of thin soft absorbent paper.
B. Fallacy of Amphiboly it arises from the ambiguous use not of a single word but of a phrase or of a
complete sentence.
- it is a syntactical ambiguity.
- It consists in using a phrase whose individual words are univocal but whose meaning is ambiguous
because the grammatical construction can be interpreted in various ways.
- The grammatical construction of a sentence is not clear and is therefore open to different
interpretations
e.g.
A lady gets angry with her boyfriend who says, I love texting better than my girlfriend.
For sale: Convertible car by a teacher with a damaged top.
Clean and decent dancing every night except Sunday.
I would like to buy a clock for my boyfriend with three hands.
C. Fallacy of Accent or Prosody
- arises from a false accent or from a false emphasis in speech. It is the ambiguous use of a word that
has different meanings when it is accented differently.
e.g.
A dessrt is a course of fruit served after the meal;
But a dsert is a forsaken region;

Therefore, a forsaken region is acourse of fruit served after meal.

D. Fallacy of Figure of Speech
- occurs when one concludes that a similarity in the conclusion of one term with another establishes a
corresponding similarity in their meanings.
- It is a special type of false analogy that consists in wrongly inferring similarity of meaning from
similarity of word structure.
e.g.
A man who writes-writer. A man who sings-singer. A man who dances-dancer. A man who killskiller. Therefore, a man who cooks-cooker.
E. Fallacy of Composition
- consists in taking collectively what should be taken individually. In other words, a term is first used in
its distributive sense and then in its collective sense.
- It includes taking words or phrases as a unit when they should be taken separately.
e.g.
LA Lakers is an excellent team since Kobe Bryant is an excellent player.
You and I and all our friends are rich, and we belong to the Rotary Club. So the Rotary Club must
be rich.
F. Fallacy of Division
- consists in taking individually what should be taken collectively.
- Opposite of fallacy of composition
e.g.
My family is one of high caliber. I am a member of this family. So I am a person of high caliber.
Sofias hair is damaged. Therefore, each strand is damaged.
Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies of Presumption
- These fallacies arise when the truth of the conclusion which is supposed to be proven is assumed
without evidence or argument, or when the issue at hand is evaded or ignored, or when the
conclusion is reached by unwarranted premises.
I. Fallacy of Begging the Question (Petition principii)
- This fallacy is the assumption of the truth of proposition or that of a premise which is yet to be proved.
e.g.
Communism is the best form of government, because it alone takes care of the interests of the common
tao.
a. The fallacy of assumption non-probata is the other name given to this error in reasoning. This
occurs when we simply assume the truth of an unproved premise, that is, without giving any evidence
to support it.
e.g.

All religious people are honest.

Inasmuch as Mr. Ramirez is a very religious person, and he does not steal the peoples money,
therefore he is honest.

b. Another name used for this fallacy is circulus in probando or fallacy of arguing in a circle. This
occurs when we used two unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the other. That is,
we assume something as true, deduce a conclusion from this assumed truth, and then use our
conclusion to prove the truth of our original assumption.
e.g.

Corruption should be punished for it is morally wrong. We maintain that it is morally wrong
because it is punished.

II. Fallacies of Evading the Question

As the terms implies, these fallacies are made to evade the issue at hand by utilizing such techniques (modus
operandi) as the following:
a. Providing what is not supposed to be proved
b. Not proving what is supposed to be proved
c. Disproving what has not been asserted
d. Proving something beside the question
This fallacy is also known as the fallacy of ignoring the question (ignorantio elenchi). Others call it the fallacy of
irrelevant conclusion, because we brush aside or ignore the real question at issue and attempt to prove something which
has no bearing at all on the question under discussion.
A. Argumentum ad hominem (Argument to the man)
- We commit this fallacy when we evade the real issue itself and discuss the personality of our
opponent instead of the question under discussion.
- The common expressions which connote this fallacy are: Character assassination, attacking below
the belt, mud singing, name calling, etc.
e.g.

How can my opponent be relied upon, he is an ex-convict?

Can you believe a bigamist?

How can we believe you, you are a call boy?

B. Argumentum ad populum (Argument to the people)
- We commit this fallacy when we befog or evade the issue by appealing to the passions and
prejudices, likes and dislikes, whims and caprices of the people.
- Politicians usually employ this argument.
- There is no room for reason or logic.
- Emotions and passions prevail over reason.
- Mob prejudice will decide the issue. Hence, this fallacy is usually resorted to scoundrels.
e.g.

Communism is our only hope in life. Look at the harrowing plight of the poor farmers in the fields.
Look at the poverty stricken workers in factories. Look at the thousands of starving children
around us. Look at the sad conditions of squatters in our midst. All of them are suffering because
of the diabolic sin of the capitalists. Down with the capitalists, the oppressors, the se-exploiters of
women and exploiters of masses. Down with capitalism!

C. Argumentum ad misericordiam (Argument to the sympathy)

- We commit this fallacy when we appeal to pity, mercy, or sympathy. In the process, we ignore the
point at issue and appeal to our instinct to have compassion on the needy, unfortunate, and
downtrodden.
- Thus, we obscure the issue by playing on our emotions.
e.g.

A student who begs his professor to give her a passing mark because if she failed
she would lose her scholarship.

D. Argumentum ad crumemam (Argument to the money)

- We commit this fallacy when we appeal to the sense of greed or cupidity of an individual.
- When instead of reasoning out of an argument, we use money to bribe the opponent to concede.
e.g.

When a jeepney driver bribes a traffic policeman who catches him violating
traffic regulations, he is using the argument of the money.
Please give me a passing remark, sir. Ako na bahala sa iyo. Pwede nateng pag-usapan, Sir
kung magkano.

E. Argumentum ad verecundiam (Argument to the traditions or customs)

- This fallacy is committed when we appeal to the sanctity of customs and traditions to justify our
proposition.
- We ignore the real question and maintain that our contention is valid because tradition and custom
justify it.
- This may be regarded as a case of blind authoritarianism.
- It is based on false assumption that customs and traditions that have persisted are true and legitimate
because they have withstood the passage of time and things that are untested or untried are to be set
aside.
e.g.

I believe in ghosts because tradition has always attested to the existence of

unseen beings.
I believe in God because religious tradition affirms the existence of God.

F. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument to the ignorance)

- We commit this fallacy when we ignore the truth or falsity of a particular proposition and simply assert
that it is true or false because the people are ignorant about it.
- There are two aspects of this fallacy.
F.1. We assume that a proposition is true because we cannot prove it false. Since we
cannot disprove it, it must be true
F.2. We assume that a proposition is false, because we cannot prove it true. Since we
cannot prove its truth, then it must be false.
e.g.

You cannot disprove that aswangs exist. Therefore, their existence is true.
You cannot prove that God exists. Therefore, there is no God.

G. Argumentum ad auctoritatem (Argument to the authority)

- This fallacy is closely related to the argument to the customs and traditions.
- We commit this fallacy when, instead of showing the intrinsic merits of the issue at hand, we appeal to
the authority of some prominent persons to support of our contention.
- This argument assumes that whatever a highly esteemed person in authority says, must be true.
e.g.

There is God because my professor says so.

H. Argumentum ad baculum (Argument to force)

- We commit this fallacy when we ignore the real issue at hand and appeal to physical or moral
pressure rather than to reason.

e.g.

I.

We play upon fear, threatening with dire punishment those who refuse either to follow a policy or to
accept our view.
When a suitor fails to win the hand of a girl in courtship, and seduces her.
When an employer threatens an employee with dismissal unless he votes for the
employers candidates.

Argument to Ones Own Advantage

- This argument may also be called to gain or profit.
- We commit this fallacy when we ignore an issue and appeal to a person or a group of persons to
adopt a belief or policy which the person or group of persons concerned would heed unless the
advantage (gain) offered were given, especially if such belief or policy is contrary to the persons
accepted sense of morality.
e.g.

When a religious leader offers a person job provided he joins his religion and
accepts its creed.
When a rich man offers to pay the hospital bill of a young girls mother, provided the young girl
becomes his mistress.
Fallacies of Complex Questions

e.g.

Fallacy of complex questions is also known as the fallacy of interrogation, the fallacy of many questions or the
fallacy of loaded questions.
We commit this fallacy when we use question-begging words by asking a question that already assumes an
answer.
We employ a question with several implications which are prejudicial and disadvantageous to the opponent, and
we assume that the truth of one implies the prejudice to the other.
This often occurs in a course of a direct examination or cross-examination of a witness.
A student in a fact-finding committee investigation on campus drug abuse was asked by
the chairman the following question: Have you stopped smoking marijuana?
This question assumes two allegations without proofs:
1. that the student addressed smokes.
2. that he has been smoking marijuana.
It assumes without proof that the student has been smoking marijuana. A categorical yes would mean
an admission that he has been smoking marijuana; and a categorical no would mean that he is still
smoking marijuana.

Other examples:
a. Have you stopped beating your wife?
b. Have you finally given up your bad habits?
c. Have you disposed of all the goods you stole?
d. Have you given up the practice of cheating?
Fallacy of Non-Sequitor
-

Non-sequitor is a Latin phrase which means it does not follow.

We commit this fallacy when our conclusion does not necessarily follow from our premises.
We simply draw a connection between the cause and the effect or between the antecedent and the consequent.
e.g.

Jose Loves Paula because Paula loves Jose.

Patricia is the most beautiful student in our university; therefore, she should be given scholarship.
Mr. Villa goes to church every Sunday; therefore, he cannot commit graft and corruption.