1C01 PHI - LOGIC AND REASONING APTITUDE

MODULE 1- Introduction
The term ‘Philosophy’ is derived from two Greek words ‘philos’ and ‘sophia’. Philos means
‘love’ and sophia means ‘wisdom’. So etymologically philosophy means the love of wisdom. In a
broad sense, philosophy can be defined as an activity people undertake when they seek to understand
fundamental truths about themselves, the world in which they live, and their relationships to the world
and to each other. In short philosophy may be defined as the science, which tries to account for the
phenomena of the universe. Philosophy has many branches that explore principles of specific areas,
such as reasoning (logic), beauty (aesthetics), human conduct (ethics), knowledge (epistemology) and
being in general (metaphysics).

1.1. What is Logic?

The term ‘logic’ is derived from the Greek word ‘logos’, which means reasoning or thinking.
Undisputedly Aristotle is considered as the father of formal or traditional logic. He considered logic
as a preparatory science, which must be studied by all before proceeding to other sciences.
Science in general has been divided in to Positive and Normative science. A positive science
deals with things as they are. For example history, chemistry, psychology, political science, geology etc.
On the other hand a normative science deals with things, as they should be or ‘ought to be’. Positive
science is also known as Natural science, as they study the nature of things. A normative science is
one that sets up a norm or standard or ideal to which the facts under study must conform. There are
three normative sciences, i.e. ethics, aesthetic and logic. The ideal or standard of aesthetics is beauty,
ethics is goodness and logic is truth.
Most definitions of logic are fairly controversial, that is partly because what has been called
logic has changed radically in scope and in the course of its 2000 years history. In its due course
different logicians have given different definitions of logic. Aldrich defines logic as the ‘Art of
reasoning’. Whately defines logic as the ‘Art and science of reasoning’. Thompson defines it as ‘the
science of the laws of thought’. A careful examination of these definitions will show that they are
mostly inaccurate and need modifications. The most commonly accepted definition of logic in our time
is one that is given by I.M Copi & C. Cohen in their book ‘Introduction to Logic’. They define ‘logic as
the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect)
reasoning.
The distinction between correct and incorrect reasoning is the central problem with which
logic deals. Reasoning is a special kind of thinking in which problems are solved or in which inference
takes places. Now the question arises what is inference? Inference is an intellectual process in which a
new proposition is drawn from one or more given propositions. The given propositions are called
Premises and the derived proposition is called Conclusion.
e.g. All Keralites are Indians (Premises)
All Indians are Asians (Premises)
Therefore All Keralites are Asians (Conclusion)
Though all reasoning is of interest to the logician, he is primarily concerned with correctness of
the completed process of the reasoning. The logician asks: Does the problem get solved? Does the
conclusion reached follow from the premises? Do the premises provide good grounds for accepting the
conclusion? If the problem gets solved, if the premises provide adequate grounds for affirming the
conclusion, if asserting the premises to be true warrants asserting the conclusion to be true also, then the
reasoning is correct. Otherwise it is incorrect.

1.3. Uses of studying logic

The study of logic cannot ensure that logicians will never make a mistake in argument; but the
chances of making mistake are certainly much less in their case. Logic is like a laser — a tool whose
best use is not illumination, but rather focus. A laser may not provide light for your home, but, like
logic, its great power resides in its precision. The importance of logic may be summarized as follows.
1
a) Science of sciences: The study of logic helps us to evaluate the basic concepts of all sciences
and thereby gain knowledge of the bases of every science. Therefore logic is essential to proper
understanding of every science.
b) Logic & computer: Every action the computer performs happens because of a complex structure
of logical instructions. Software, hardware and even computer programming is based on logic.
c) Logic & law: A legal definition provides the basis for a legal argument, which is similar to a
logical argument. According to a former US Attorney General 90% of the cases can be resolved using
deductive reasoning and the remaining 10% thorough inductive reasoning.
d) Avoidance of error: In logic we study the causes of various forms of fallacious reasoning and
this helps us to avoid them in our argument.
e) Correct generalization: One of the most important causes of false reasoning is superficial
generalization that is, deducing the conclusion from insufficient or irrelevant evidence. In logic we learn
how to generalize correctly
f) Intellectual exercise: Just as our body needs physical exercise to remain fit and healthy, so do
our brains need intellectual exercise to remain sharp and quick.

1.4. Identifying premises and conclusion (Indicators)

It is indeed very difficult to find out the premises and conclusion in an argument. For example:
Since animility and rationality are the two attributes of human beings, we may conclude that man is a
rational animal. In this argument from the premises indicator ‘since’ and conclusion indicator ‘conclude
that’ we can easily find out the premise and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Since animility and rationality are the two attributes of human beings.
Conclusion: We may conclude that man is a rational animal.
Thus by using the conclusion and premise indicators we can overcome this difficulty to a certain
extent. Conclusion indicator is a word or phrase (such as “therefore” or “thus”) appearing in an
argument usually indicates that what follows it is the conclusion of that argument. Here are some of the
commonly used conclusion indicators:
Therefore Hence For these reasons It follows that
So Accordingly I conclude that Which shows that
In consequence Consequently Which means that Which entitles that
It proves that As a result Which implies that Which allows us to infer that
Thus For this reason We may infer Which points to the conclusion that

Other words or phrases typically serve to mark the premises of an argument and hence are called
premise indicators. Usually what follows any one of these will be the premise of some argument. Here
is a partial list of these premise indicators:
Since Because The reason is that For the reason that
For As May be inferred from May be derived from
Follows from As shown by May be deduced from In view of the fact that
In as much As indicated by

1.5. Terms, propositions and arguments

There are differences between a word, a name and a term, a proposition and an argument. A
word is the smallest free form in a language. Words are the blocks from which sentences are made. A
word consists of a letter or a combination of letters which convey some meaning. A word may consist
of only one letter e.g. ‘A’ or ‘I’ or it may consist of more than one letter e.g. ‘god’ or ‘dog’. Words must
always have some meaning. ‘God’ and ‘dog’ are words, but ‘odg’ cannot be a word, even though the
letters are the same.
A name is a label for a noun, normally used to distinguish one from another. Names can identify
a class or category of things, or a single thing. Every word cannot be called a name. For example, of,

2
before, in etc cannot be considered as names. If we say “before has four legs” we will be laughed at.
Therefore all words cannot become names, while all names must be words.
A term is a name which serves either as the subject or predicate in a proposition. In the
proposition ‘Gandhiji is the father of the nation’, ‘Gandhiji’ and ‘father of the nation’ are terms because
they are the subject and predicate of this proposition. In logic words and names can become terms only
if they are used in a proposition. Another difference between name and a term is that while a name can
have different meanings, a term can have only one definite meaning. For example ‘balance’ may mean
either a machine or difference of accounts. But when we say ‘Balance is a weighting machine’, here the
term ‘balance’ has only one meaning. Here also it is to be noted that while all terms are words, all
words are not terms. The terms can be classified into concrete and abstract, singular and general,
positive and negative, relative and absolute, connotative and denotative terms.
Proposition are the building blocks of every argument. A proposition is something that may be
asserted or denied. Propositions in this way are different from questions, commands and exclamations.
Neither questions, which are asked, nor commands, which can be given, nor exclamations, which can be
uttered, can possibly asserted or denied. Only propositions assert that something is or is not the case and
therefore only they can be true or false. Thus every proposition is either true or false. e.g: All men are
mortal, No men are birds, Some men are birds etc
Argument is a process of reasoning using proposition. In an argument we use inference or
reasoning. It is the process of the deriving a new proposition from one or more given propositions. The
given propositions are called the premises and the derived proposition is called the conclusion.
While a proposition is either true or false, an argument is always valid or invalid.
e.g. All men are mortal (Premise)
Socrates is a man (Premise)
Therefore Socrates is mortal (Conclusion)

In other words it may be concluded that logic is concerned with the three processes of thinking,
known as conception, judgment and reasoning.
a) Conception: is the function of the human mind by which an idea or concept is formed in the mind. It
is the process of forming a mental image of an object.
e.g: You see a ‘crow’ and form an idea of the crow in your mind.
b) Judgment: It is another function of the mind by which a relation between things is established. It is a
process of comparing concepts or ideas. By judgment the mind affirms or denies something of
something else
e.g. We have the idea of crow and the idea of blackness. When these two ideas are connected,
we have the judgment, that ‘Crows are black’.
c) Reasoning or Inference: means the process of passing from certain known judgments to a new
judgment. From the two known judgments: All crows are black and ‘x’ is a crow, we draw the
conclusion that ‘x’ is black.
These three processes of thinking namely conception, judgment and reasoning, when
expressed in language are known as Term, Proposition and Argument. Though logic is mainly
concerned with reasoning (argument), the reasoning itself presupposes concept (term) and judgment
(proposition). So in a wider sense we may say that concept, judgment and reasoning (term, proposition
and argument) constitute the subject matter of logic.

MODULE 2- Categorical Propositions

2.1. Categorical propositions and classes

Generally there are two kinds of propositions: categorical and conditional. A categorical
proposition states the relation between two terms without any condition.
Examples: Tomorrow is a holiday/ All students are hostellers/ He is hardworking etc.

3
 A conditional proposition on the other hand asserts a relation between the subject and predicate
on a condition.
Examples: If it rains, then tomorrow is a holiday/ Either students are day-scholars or hostellers.
A categorical proposition has contains two terms connected together by means of a copula.
The term about which the affirmation or denial is made is called the subject. The term which is affirmed
or denied of the subject is called the predicate. In the above examples, Tomorrow/ students/ he is the
subject and holiday/ hostellers/ hardworking is the predicate. Categorical proposition is divided in to
four on the basis of their quality and quantity.

2.2. Quality, Quantity and Distribution

Every standard form of categorical proposition is said to have a quality, either affirmative or
negative. If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, where complete or partial, its quality is
affirmative (e.g. All men are mortal/ Some roses are red). If the proposition denies class inclusion,
whether complete or partial, its quality is negative (e.g. No flowers are birds/ Some roses are not red).
Every standard form of categorical proposition is said to have a quantity also, either particular
or universal (All/ Some). If the proposition refers to all members of the class designated by its subject
term, its quality is universal. If the proposition refers only to some members of the class designated by
its subject term, its quantity is particular. By combining these quality and quantity we get four kind of
categorical propositions, namely:
A Universal Affirmative All politicians are liars All S is P
E Universal Negative No politicians are liars No S is P
I Particular Affirmative Some politicians are liars Some S is P
O Particular Negative Some politicians are not liars Some S is not P
Each of these categorical propositions has four parts, i.e., quantifier, subject, copula and the
predicate. Thus in the example ‘All politicians are liars’, ‘All’ is the quantifier, ‘politicians’ is the
subject, ‘are’ is the copula and ‘lairs’ is the predicate.
Distribution of Terms
A term is said to be distributed if it refers to all members of the class designated by the term. Or
in other words a term is distributed when it is used in its entire extent, referring to all objects denoted by
the term and a term is said to be undistributed whenever only a part of the denotation is taken in to
consideration.
Thus the Universal Affirmative ‘A’ proposition: ‘All MPs are citizens’, refers to all MPs but
does not refer to all citizens. It asserts that each and every member of the class of MP is a citizen, but it
makes no assertion about all citizens. It does not affirm that each and every citizen is a MP. Any ‘A’
proposition of this form, All S is P always distributes its subject term but never distributes its
predicate term.
In an Universal Negative ‘E’ proposition ‘No dogs are cats’ the subject has no relation with the
predicate. The subject term ‘dogs’ refers to all dogs and the predicate ‘cats’ refers to all cats. Thus an E
proposition always distributes both its subject and predicate.
In a Particular Affirmative ‘I’ proposition ‘Some soldiers are cowards’, makes no assertion
about all soldiers and makes no assertion about all cowards either. It says nothing about each and every
soldier or about each and every coward. Neither class is said to be either wholly included or wholly
excluded from the other. Thus in an ‘I’ proposition both the subject and predicate terms will remain
undistributed.
The Particular Negative ‘O’ proposition, ‘Some birds are not white’, the subject term ‘birds’ is
not distributed, because it refers to only some birds and not all birds. The predicate term ‘not white’ is
distributed because it refers to all those which are not white. Thus an ‘O’ proposition never distributes
its subject and always distributes its predicate.
It may be noted that Universal Propositions (A,E) always distributed its subject and Particular
Propositions (I,O) never distributes its subject. Likewise the Affirmative Propositions (A,I) never
distributes its predicate and Negative Propositions (E,O) always distributes its subject.

4
2.3. Distinction between Immediate and Mediate inferences Inference is the process of drawing a
new proposition from one or more given propositions. The given propositions are called premises and
the derived proposition is called the conclusion. Inference is divided in to immediate and mediate
inference. Mediate inference is the process of deriving a conclusion from two or more given
propositions taken together. For example
No Heroes are Cowards No P is M Major Premise
Some Soldiers are Cowards Some S is M Minor Premise
Some Soldiers are not Heroes Some S is not P Conclusion
In the above example of mediate inference the conclusion is drawn jointly from the major and minor
premises.
If the conclusion is drawn from only one given proposition then it called the immediate
inference. For example from the given ‘A’ proposition ‘All students are intelligent’ we can immediately
draw its corresponding ‘E’ proposition ‘‘No students are intelligent’ or ‘I” proposition ‘Some students
are intelligent’ or ‘O’ proposition ‘Some students are not intelligent’. Immediate inference of
Opposition or Square of Opposition and Immediate inference of Eduction are the common kinds of
immediate inferences.

2.4. The traditional Square of Opposition

Traditional Square of Opposition is a kind of immediate inference. It is also known as
Opposition of Proposition. Opposition of proposition means the relation between two propositions
having the same subject and the same predicate but which differ in quality or in quantity or in both. The
relation between the 4 kinds of propositions is clearly shown by the Square of Opposition.

Square of Opposition or Opposition of Propositions

There are four kinds of relation in a traditional square of opposition. They are known as
Contrary, Sub-contrary, Subaltern and Contradictory relations.
Contrary Relation (A-E)
It is the relation between two Universal propositions having the same subject and same predicate which
differs only in quality.
e.g. All politicians are liars and No politicians are liars
Sub- Contrary Relation (I-O)
It is the relation between two Particular propositions having the same subject and same predicate which
differs in quality.
5
 e.g. Some politicians are liars and Some politicians are not liars
Subaltern Relation (A-I & E-O)
It is the relation between a Universal proposition and a Particular proposition having the same subject
and same predicate which differs in quantity.
e.g. All politicians are liars and Some politicians are liars (A-I)
e.g. No politicians are liars and Some politicians are not liars (E-O)
Contradictory Relation (A-O & E-I)
It is the relation between a Universal proposition and a Particular proposition having the same subject
and same predicate which differs both in its quantity and quality.
e.g. All politicians are liars and Some politicians are not liars (A-O)
e.g. No politicians are liars and Some politicians are liars (E-I)

2.5. Eduction: Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition and Inversion

Eduction is the second kind of immediate inference. In eduction the meaning of the premise and
conclusion are same. The difference between them is only in its form. Where as in the traditional square
of opposition the premise and conclusion differ both in form and meaning. Eduction is mainly divided
into conversion and obversion. The other forms of eduction like contrapostion and inversion is obtained
by applying conversion and obversion alternatively.

Conversion: conversion is a process of immediate inference in which from a single given proposition,
we draw another proposition in which the original predicate becomes the subject and the original
subject becomes the predicate of the new proposition. The given proposition is called convertend and
the inferred proposition is called converse. In conversion we inter change the subject and predicate
without changing the meaning of the proposition.
Rules of conversion
1. Transposition of terms: The subject of premise should be the predicate of the conclusion. Predicate of
the premise should be the subject of the conclusion. That is, interchange the subject and predicate.
2. Quality of the premise (convertend) and conclusion (converse) remain the same. Either both premise
and conclusion are affirmative or negative.
3. Distribution of terms: no term must be distributed in the converse (conclusion) if it is not distributed
in the convertend (premise).

Convertend Conversion Form Form Converse

All S is P Some P is S
A SAP-PIS e.g., All snakes are reptiles e.g., Some reptiles are snakes I
No S is P No P is S
E SEP-PES e.g., No snakes are reptiles e.g., No reptile are snakes E
Some S is P Some P is S
I SIP-PIS e.g., Some snakes are reptiles e.g., Some reptiles are snakes I

No
O converse

‘A’ proposition could not be converted into A proposition as it violates the third rule of conversion, that
is, no term can be distributed in the converse, unless it is distributed in the convertend. So ‘A’
proposition is converted into I proposition. This conversion is called conversion by limitation, because
here we go from a universal premise to a particular conclusion. Conversion of E proposition and I
proposition are full and simple conversion. Conversion of O proposition is not valid because for the
6
term which is undistributed in premise becomes distributed in the conclusion. This is the violation of the
third rule of conversion and therefore, no conversion is possible for O proposition.

Obversion
Obversion is another form of eduction. In it from a given proposition we draw another proposition,
which has for its subject, the original subject, and for its predicate contradictory of the original
predicate. In obversion we change the quality without changing the meaning. The given proposition is
called obvertend and derived proposition is called obverse.
Rules of obversion
1. Subject of the obverse is same as the subject of the obvertend
2. Predicate of the obverse is the contradictory of the predicate in the obveretend.
3. The quality of the obverse is the opposite of the obvertend
4. The quantity of the obverse is same as that of the quantity of the obvertend.

Obvertend Obversion Form Form Obverse

All S is P No S is non-P
A SAP-SEP¯ e.g., All roses are red e.g., No roses are non-red E
No S is P All S is non-P
E SEP-SAP¯ e.g., No roses are red e.g., All roses are non-red A
Some S is P Some S is not non-P
I SIP-SOP¯ e.g., Some roses are red e.g., Some roses are not non- O
red
Some S is not P Some S is non-P I
O SOP- SIP¯ e.g., Some roses are not red e.g., Some roses are non-red

Obverted converse: In obverted converse first we convert the given proposition and then we obvert the
converse. O proposition have no obverted converse, because it has no converse.

Proposition Form Converse Obverted converse.

A SAP PIS POS¯
All s is p Some p is s Some p is not non s
A I O
E SEP PES PAS¯
No s is p No p is s All p is non s
E E A
I SIP PIS POS¯
Some s is p Some p is s Some p is not non s
I I O


7
 MODULE 3 Categorical Syllogisms
3.1 Standard form
Inference is divided in to mediate and immediate inference. Mediate inference is the
process of deriving a conclusion from more than one premise. A syllogism is a deductive argument of
mediate inference type, in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.
Syllogism can be divided in to Pure categorical syllogism and Mixed syllogism. When
all the three propositions are categorical it is called Pure categorical syllogism.
E.g. All hostellers are rich (Categorical Proposition A)
Some students are hostellers (Categorical Proposition I)
Some students are rich (Categorical Proposition I)
A mixed syllogism is one in which both categorical and conditional propositions are used in one ant the
same syllogism.
E.g. If he is a Judge, then he will be a law graduate (Conditional Hypothetical Proposition)
He is a Judge (Categorical Proposition)
He is a law graduate (Categorical Proposition)
A Categorical Syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical
propositions that contains exactly three terms, each of the terms occurring twice in the argument. The
first 2 propositions are the given propositions; called premises and the third one is a inferred proposition
and is called the conclusion. The term that occurs as the predicate of the conclusion is called the Major
Term and is represented by the letter ‘P’. The term that occurs as the subject of the conclusion is called
the Minor Term and is represented the letter ‘S’. The third term of the syllogism, which does not occur
in the conclusion; but appearing in both the premises is called the Middle Term and is represented by
the letter ‘M’
E.g. All hostellers are rich All M is P Major Premise
Some students are hostellers Some S is M Minor Premise
Some students are rich Some S is not P Conclusion

In this example the predicate of the conclusion (rich) is called the Major Term (P).
The subject of the conclusion (students) is the Minor Term (S). The term which occurs in both the
premises and not in the conclusion (hostellers) is called the Middle Term (M). The premise in which
the Major Term (rich) occurs is called the Major Premise and the premise in which the Minor Term
(students) occurs is the is called the Minor Premise. In a standard form of categorical syllogism, the
proper order of the 3 propositions is Major Premise, Minor Premise and Conclusion.
It must be noted that any two categorical premises will not yield a valid conclusion. A
valid syllogism should satisfy the following conditions and it is known as the rules of syllogism and a
logical error is known as a fallacy:

3.2. Rules and Fallacies

1. A syllogism must contain only 3 propositions and 3 terms. First part of this rule follows from the
very definition of syllogism as a process of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given
propositions taken together. The second part of the first rule states that every syllogism must contain
only 3 and 3 terms, no more and no less. Any categorical syllogism that contains more than 3 terms is
invalid, and is said to commit the Fallacy of Four Terms (quanterinio terminorum).
E.g. The general is the commander of the army or B is a friend of C
The general’s wife is the commander of the general A is a friend of B
The general’s wife is the commander of the army. A is a friend of C
In this example there four terms 1) The general 2) The commander of the army 3) The general’s wife
and 4) The commander of the general or A,B,C and friend.

2. Each of the 3 terms of syllogism must be used in the same sense throughout the argument. That is
if any term is used in two different meanings; it is practically equivalent to two terms and the syllogism
commits the Fallacy of Equivocation. There are 3 kinds of equivocation, they are:
8
a) Fallacy of Ambiguous Major: This fallacy occurs when a syllogism uses its Major Term in one
sense in the premise and in another sense in the conclusion.
E.g. Light is essential to guide our steps
Lead is not essential to guide our steps
Lead is not light.
In this example the Major Term ‘light’ means ‘brightness’ in the major premise and it means ‘not
heavy’ in the conclusion.
b) Fallacy of Ambiguous Minor: This fallacy occurs when the Minor Terms means one thing in the
minor premise and quite another in the conclusion.
E.g. No men are made of Paper
All Pages are men
No pages are made of paper
Here the Minor Term ‘Pages’ means ‘boy servants’ in the minor premise and ‘side of a paper’ in the
conclusion. Hence we commit the fallacy of Ambiguous Minor.
c) Fallacy of Ambiguous Middle: this fallacy occurs in a syllogism, when the Middle Term is used in
one sense in the major premise and in another sense in the conclusion.
E.g. Water is liquid
Ice is water
Ice is liquid
Here the Middle Term ‘water’ means ‘ordinary liquid water’ in the major premise and ‘frozen solid
water in the minor premise. Hence commits the fallacy of Ambiguous Middle.

III: In a valid categorical syllogism, the Middle term must be distributed at least once in the
premises. The Middle Term mediates between the Major Term (P) and Minor Term (S) as their
common standard of reference. Since Middle Term (M) is the standard of comparison it must be used at
least in one premise in its entire extent. Otherwise we will be comparing ‘P’ with one part of ‘M’ and
‘S’ with another part of ‘M’. The surest way of comparing ‘S’ and ‘P’ with the same part of ‘M’ is to
distribute ‘M’ at least once in the premises.
E.g. All dogs are mammals
All cats are mammals
Therefore, All cats are dogs

IV: In a valid categorical syllogism, if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be
distributed in the premises also. The conclusion of a valid argument cannot go beyond or assert
anymore than what is already contained in the premises. If the conclusion speaks about more than what
is asserted by the premises the argument is invalid. It is an ‘Illicit’ process, for the conclusion to say
more about its term than the premises do. That is, when the conclusion of a syllogism distributed a term
that was un-distributed in the premises, its says more than the premises warrant and therefore the
syllogism is invalid. Such an ‘Illicit’ process may occur in the case of either the Major or the Minor
Term.
a) Illicit Major: This fallacy occurs when the Major Term is un-distributed in the Major premise and
distributed in the conclusion
E.g. All dogs are mammals
No cats are dogs
Therefore, No cats are mammals
Here the Major term (mammals) is undistributed in the major premise and it becomes distributed in the
conclusion. Hence the fallacy of Illicit Major.
b) Illicit Minor: This fallacy is said to occur when the undistributed Minor Term in the minor premise
becomes distributed in the conclusion.
E.g. All Keralites are Indians
All Indians are Asians
Therefore, All Asians are Keralities
9
Here the Minor term (Asians) is undistributed in the minor premise but it becomes distributed in the
conclusion. Hence the fallacy of Illicit Minor

V: Two negative premises yield no valid conclusion. Any negative proposition (E,O) denies class
inclusion. It asserts that all or some of one class is excluded from the whole of the other. In other words,
if the major premise is negative the major term does not agree with the Middle Term (M) and if the
minor premise also is negative, the Minor Term too does not agree with ‘M’. Thus there is no mediating
link between ‘S’ & ‘P’. So no relationship can be established between ‘S’ and ‘P’ in the conclusion and
therefore invalid. This fallacy is called Fallacy if 2 Negative premise or Fallacy of Exclusive
Premises.
E.g. No policemen are coward
No army men are coward
No conclusion possible

VI: a) If one premise is negative the conclusion must be negative and if the conclusion is negative one
of the premises must be negative. b) Two particular premises yield no valid conclusion.
VII: From two universal premises no particular conclusion may be drawn. The mistake is called the
existential fallacy.

MODULE 4 Conditional Syllogisms

Whereas the categorical syllogism exclusively consists of categorical propositions in both the premises
and in the conclusions; the conditional syllogisms consist of both the categorical and conditional
propositions in the same argument. There are three kinds of conditional or mixed syllogism namely
disjunctive syllogism, hypothetical syllogism and dilemma.
4.1. Disjunctive Syllogism rules and fallacies
Disjunctive syllogism is a kind of mixed syllogism. The major premise is a disjunctive proposition
(either…or). The minor and conclusions are categorical proposition.
E.g. It is red or it is blue.
It is not blue.
Therefore, it is red.
The two parts of the major proposition are called disjuncts. The rule is to deny one disjunct in the minor
and affirm the other in the conclusion. The valid form of disjunctive syllogism is known as modus
tollendo ponens. The form of the disjunctive syllogism is: "P or Q, not P, therefore Q".

4.2. Hypothetical Syllogism

A hypothetical syllogism is a mixed syllogism in which he major premise is a hypothetical proposition
(If …… then), the minor and the conclusion are categorical propositions.
E.g. If he is a Judge, then he will be a law graduate
He is a Judge
Therefore, He is a law graduate
In the hypothetical major premise there are two parts 1) Antecedent: It is the part which expresses the
condition or supposition introduced by ‘if’ or its equivalent. The antecedent is the condition or cause
from which the effect follows. 2) Consequent: It is the effect which follows from the antecedent. Only
when these two parts, antecedent and the consequent, are intimately and necessarily connected as cause
and effect, the hypothetical proposition is correct logical one. In the above example the part “If he is
Judge” is the antecedent or cause and “he will be a law graduate” is the consequent or effect.
Rules
Affirm the antecedent in the minor premise and then affirm the consequent in the conclusion or deny the
consequent in the minor premise and then deny the antecedent in the conclusion. Based on this rules
there are two kinds of Hypothetical Syllogism
1) Modus Ponens or Constructive Hypothetical Syllogism: is one in which the minor premise affirms
the antecedent and conclusion affirms the consequent.
10
E.g. If he is a Judge, then he will be a law graduate
He is a Judge
He is a law graduate
Instead of affirming if we deny the antecedent in the minor premise then we commit the fallacy of
denying the antecedent.
E.g. If he is a Judge, then he will be a law graduate
He is a not a Judge
He is a not law graduate
Here instead of affirming the antecedent we denied it. Here we commit the fallacy because, the fact that
he is not a Judge does not deny that he is a law graduate.
2) Modus Tollens or Destructive Hypothetical Syllogism: is one in which the minor premise denies
the consequent and the conclusion denies the antecedents.
E.g. If he is an advocate, then he will be a law graduate
He is not a law graduate
He is not an advocate
Instead of denying if we affirm the consequent in the minor premise then we commit the fallacy of
affirming the consequent.
E.g. If he is an advocate, then he will be a law graduate
He is a law graduate
He is an advocate
This is a fallacy because the fact that he is a law graduate does not guarantee that he is an advocate.

4.3 Dilemma
A dilemma is a Mixed or Compound syllogism in which the Major premise consists of 2 Hypothetical
propositions, the Minor premise is a Disjunctive (alternative) proposition and the Conclusion is a
Categorical (simple) proposition or a Disjunctive proposition. A dilemma is Constructive when the
Minor premise affirms the antecedents of the Major and Destructive when it denies the Consequents of
the Major. A dilemma is simple when the conclusion is a simple proposition and Complex when the
conclusion is a disjunctive proposition. Thus there are 4 forms or moods of dilemma.
1) Simple Constructive Dilemma
2) Simple Destructive Dilemma
3) Complex Constructive Dilemma
4) Complex Destructive Dilemma

1) Simple Constructive Dilemma: Simple constructive dilemma is one in which the minor premise
affirms the 2 antecedents of the major and the simple conclusion affirms the consequent of the
major premise.
E.g. If a man acts according to his conscience, he will be criticized; and if he follows the opinion of
others, he will be criticized. (Hypothetical Major Premise)
Either a man acts according to his conscience or he follows the opinion of others
(Disjunctive Minor Premise)
In any case, he will be criticized. (Simple Conclusion)

2) Simple Destructive Dilemma: It is one in which the Disjunctive minor denies the 2 consequences
of the major and the simple conclusion denies the antecedents of the major.
E.g If ‘X” is an advocate, then he will be a law graduate and if ‘X” is an advocate then he will be
practicing . (Hypothetical Major Premise)
He is neither a law graduate nor practicing. (Disjunctive Minor Premise)
‘X’ is not an advocate. (Simple conclusion)

3) Complex Constructive Dilemma: It is one in which the 2 antecedents of the major are affirmed
in the disjunctive minor and then the 2 consequences are affirmed in the Disjunctive Conclusion.
11
E.g. If ‘X’ is innocent, then he will be free and if ‘X’ is guilty, then he will be punished.
Either ‘X’ is innocent or ‘X’ is guilty (Disjunctive minor)
Either ‘X’ will be free or ‘X’ will be punished (Disjunctive conclusion)

4) Complex Destructive Dilemma: It is one in which the disjunctive minor denies the 2 consequences
of the major and the disjunctive conclusion denies the 2 antecedents of the major.
E.g. If he were clever, then he would see his mistakes and if he were sincere, then he would
acknowledge it.
Either he does not see his mistakes or he does not acknowledge it.
Either he is not clever or he is not sincere (Disjunctive Complex conclusion)
Conditions or Rules of a Valid Dilemma
A dilemma is a Mixed syllogism, partly hypothetical and partly disjunctive (alternative) in form. Hence
the rules of hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism apply to dilemmas. The rules can be summarized as
follows.
1) Affirm the antecedents in the Minor and then affirm the consequences in the conclusion.
Or
Deny the consequences in the Minor and then deny the antecedents in the conclusion
2) The consequences in the Major premise must really follow from their antecedents, that is, in a
relation of cause--- effect
3) The alternatives in the disjunctive propositions must be mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive.
When the dilemma violates any one of these rules it commits dilemmatic fallacies. If all the rules are
fulfilled, a dilemma is a sound and forceful form of argument

Methods of Meeting a Dilemma

In ordinary life we are said to be in dilemma when we are left with only two options, both of
which lead us to unpleasant results. In the same way logical dilemma offers two alternative statements,
both which leads to unwelcome conclusions. The dilemma forces upon the opponent an unwelcome
conclusion by confining him between two unpleasant alternates which he desires to avoid by all means.
The opponent is caught between devil and the deep sea. When he avoids one alternative, he has to
choose another equally unpleasant conclusion.
We must first examine whether the dilemma observes the formal rules of affirming the
antecedents or denying the consequences in the disjunctive minor. If it is formally incorrect we can at
once reject the argument as false. We may meet the dilemma in three ways:
1. Take the dilemma by horns: this method of attacking a dilemma consists in showing that the
consequents in the major do not really follow from their antecedents. The method question the
correctness of the truth of the major premises.
E.g. If a man is single, he would be unhappy as he has no one to take care of him: if he is married he
would be unhappy as he has to take care of his wife
A man is either single or married
Therefore, In either case he would be unhappy
In this dilemma the major premise is not true to facts. There is no necessary connection between the
antecedents and the consequents. There are people who are sing and yet happy. Similarly married
people are also happy.
2. Escaping between the horns of a dilemma
This is another way of meeting a dilemma. It consists in pointing out the imperfect disjunction of the
minor premise. Sometimes alternatives presented in the minor may not be exhaustive or exclusive of
each other.
E.g. If people are good, they do not need the advice: if they are bad they will not heed it.
Either people are good or bad
Therefore, Either people will not need advice or they will not heed it.

12
This dilemma is invalid because the alternatives in the minor are not exhaustive. There is a third
category of people who are indifferent and for such people advice is useful. This dilemma also can be
taken by the horns because in the major premise, the consequents do not follow from the antecedents.
3. Rebuttal: it is another effective method to silence the opponent by showing the weakness of his
dilemma. It is a way of retorting with another dilemma which will appear to prove the contradictory of
the proposed conclusion. To rebut a dilemma means to propose a counter dilemma with a conclusion
which is just the opposite of the original conclusion. To rebut a dilemma first contradict and exchange
the consequents in the major premise. Deny the first consequent and combine it with second antecedent
and contradict the second consequent and join it with the first antecedent.
E.g. If students are idle, exams are useless: if they are hard working exams are superfluous
Either students are idle or hard workings
Therefore, Examinations are either useless or superfluous
Rebuttal:
If students are idle, exams are not superfluous: if they are hard working exams are useful
Either students are idel or hard workings
Therefore, Examinations are not superfluous or are useful

13
Contraposition: it is a process but not an immediate form of inference, in which we infer a new
proposition from a single given proposition. It is a combination of both conversion and obversion. In
contraposition the subject of the conclusion is contradictory of the predicate of the premise, and
predicate of the conclusion is contradictory of the subject of the premise. There are two types of
contrapositive: partial contra position and full contra positive.
Partial contrapositive (obverse >converse): in partial contraposition, subject is contradictory of the
original predicate and predicate is the original subject.
Full contrapositive – (obverse>converse>obverse): in full contrapositive subject is the contradictory of
the original predicate and predicate is the contradictory of original subject.
Proposition Form Obvert Convert Obvert
Partial Full contra position
contraposition
A SAP SEP¯ P¯ES P¯AS¯
All s is p No s is non p No non p is s All non p is non s
A E E A
E SEP SAP¯ P¯IS P¯OS¯
No s is p All s is non p Some non p is s Some non p is not non s
E A I O
I SIP SOP¯ No converse
Some s is p Some s is not non p
I O
O SOP SIP¯ P¯IS P¯OS¯
Some s is not p Some s is non p Some non p is s Some non o p is not non s
O I I O

Inversion: it is a process of immediate inference by which, we infer a new proposition having the
contradictory of given subject as subject and the given predicate as the predicate. There are two type of
inversion: Partial inversion and full inversion.
In partial inversion subject of the inferred proposition is the contradictory of the original subject. In full
inverse subject and predicate are the contradictory of the original subject and predicate. Only universal
propositions A&E have inverse. Particular proposition I &O have no inverse.

14
To get the full inverse of A proposition we first obvert >convert >obvert>convert (full inverse) >obvert
(partial inverse).
To get the full inverse of E proposition we first convert>obvert>convert (partial inverse)>obvert (full
inverse)
Proposition Obvert Convert Obvert Convert Obvert

Full inverse Partial inverse

A SAP SEP ¯ P ¯ ES P ¯ AS ¯ S ¯ IP ¯ S ¯OP

All s is p No s is non p No non p is s All non p is non s Some non s is non p Some non s is p

E E A I O

Proposition Convert Obvert Convert obvert

Partial inverse Full inverse
E SEP PES PAS ¯ S ¯ IP SOP ¯

No s is p No p is s All p is non s Some non s is p Some s is not non p

E E A I O

15