CriticalThinking MIDTERMS

GED0073
Critical Thinking and Logic

Introduction to Philosophy
OBJECTIVES
■ At the end of the discussion, the learner should be able to:

- Analyze the history of Philosophy
- Relate Philosophy to other fields of study and its limitations
- Appreciate the applicability of Philosophy in an ordinary situation
ü It was derived from the Greek words: philo and sophia
ü Philo means “love of, affinity for, liking of”
ü Sophia means “wisdom”
ü Philosophy literally means love of wisdom
ü According to an ancient tradition Pythagoras of
Croton (born on the Greek island of Samos, c. 580
BCE) coined the Greek word 'philosopher'
meaning 'lover of wisdom' to contrast with 'wise
man' (sophist), saying of himself that he was only
a man who loved wisdom (a wisdom-loving man),
not a wise man. Image was lifted from: https://images.app.goo.gl/MkAAherGWM6WA1DC9
ü It is methodic and rational inquiry into the
ultimate causes of things.
ü Philosophy goes beyond the face value of
things and investigates their root causes. It
analyses the relationship between things
and the language of the investigation itself.
ü The subject of matter of philosophy is
reality. Therefore, philosophy investigates
the ultimate causes of reality.
ü Philosophy asks the question of "why" and
"how". ‘The Thinker’
From https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Thinker-
sculpture-by-Rodin
Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics
Aesthetics Logic
ü The term 'metaphysics' comes from two
Greek words, 'meta' which means 'after'
and 'physika' which means 'physics'.
ü It was coined by Andronicus of Rhodes
who was the editor of Aristotle's works
ü It is the branch of philosophy that
studies existence as an entity.
ü Metaphysics studies the cosmos and its
content.
ü Metaphysics is divided into two: Image was lifted from:
cosmology and ontology. https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/572238696396400490/

Cosmos Ontology
• It is the branch of metaphysics that • It studies categories of being.
studies the origin and the structure • It studies issues about being and
of the universe. modes of being.
• It asks such questions as: What is • Ontology asks such questions as:
the origin of the world? What is the What is life? What is the nature of
nature of the cosmos? Does the man? What is the relationship
world have a beginning or an end? between the mind and the body?
Can the universe last forever? Do we survive death? Is the mind
spiritual or physical? Does man have
a soul? Does it survive death? Is
there anything like a god or God?
ü It comes from two Greek words 'episteme' which means
'knowledge' and 'logos', which means 'study'.
ü It is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of
knowledge.
ü It studies the nature and extent of human knowledge.
ü Epistemology asks such questions as: What is
knowledge? What is truth? What can be known? Is
knowledge possible? Epistemology seeks to know the
difference between appearance and reality.
ü It seeks to distinguish knowledge and opinion; and truth from belief.
Epistemology also seeks to know whether the mind gives us an
accurate picture of the world or whether it adds its own nature to
knowledge of the world it gives us. Epistemology seeks to know the
source of human knowledge.
ü Schools of thought:
1. Rationalism: believes that knowledge can be got only
through reason
2. Empiricism: believes that knowledge can be got only
through the senses
3. Skepticism: believe that nothing can be known for
certain. For the skeptics, certainty is an illusion.
ü The term 'ethics' comes from the Greek
word 'ethos' which means custom or habit.
ü Ethics is the branch of philosophy that
studies the principles of human action. It
deals with the morality of human actions.
It deals with values of good and evil.
ü Ethics is preoccupied with prescribing the
values that will enable man live the good
life. It investigates the principles behind the
norms and conventions of the society.
Image was lifted from: https://www.scu.edu/mobi/resources--
tools/blog-posts/ethics-in-life-and-business/ethics-in-life-and-
business.html
ü The term is derived from the Greek word,
'aesthet-ikos' which means perception.
ü Aesthetics and ethics are sometimes grouped
together as a branch of philosophy called
axiology.
ü Aesthetic is the branch of philosophy that
studies beauty. It deals with what appeals to
the eyes and the ears.
ü It asks such questions as: What is beauty?
What makes a thing beautiful? What are the
properties or nature of beauty? Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa
GED0073

Introduction to Logic
OBJECTIVES

- Develop awareness of logic as a science and art of correct thinking, its relevance
- Relate logic to other fields of study and its limitations
- Make the students appreciate the applicability of logic in an ordinary situation
ü The term 'logic' comes from the Greek
word 'logos' which can be translated into
reason, word, study or rationale.
ü But in the philosophic sense, the term
'logic' denotes rationale, justification or
reason.
ü The term 'logic' was introduced in
philosophical discourse by a man called
Zeno.
Image was lifted from:

https://www.myamcat.com/blog/jobs-skills-map/best-
jobs-for-freshers-who-are-strong-in-logical-reasoning/
ü Logic is the study of the methods and
principles used to distinguish correct
from incorrect reasoning.
ü It is the art that guides reason on the
path of truth.
ü The term 'logic' connotes reason,
rationale, justification and study
because reasoning is all about
providing justifications or rationales.
Logic is that order upon which
reasoning operates. Image was lifted from:
https://www.myamcat.com/blog/jobs-skills-map/best-
jobs-for-freshers-who-are-strong-in-logical-reasoning/
Material Logic Formal Logic
• It deals with the logic that • Deals only with the
obtains when the conclusion correctness or coherence of
obtained from the process of the conclusion arrived from
reason is correct and also true the process of reasoning.
as things are in the world • Note: An argument can be
• It demands that the correct without being true.
conclusion be correct and also
factually true.
This is an example of material logic
All humans have brain.
Chito is a human. because the conclusion is correct
Therefore, Chino has a brain. and factually true.
This is an example of formal logic

All that have brain are humans.
because the conclusion is correctly
Dogs have brains.
arrived from the process of reason
Therefore, dogs are humans.
BUT is not factually true.
Bear in mind:
• Formal logic is solely concerned with the conformity to the rules of logic.
But material logic is concerned both with the rules of logic and the
truthfulness of the products of logic.
Deductive Inductive
• Concerned with determining • Concerned with the correctness
when an argument is valid (i.e., of inferences for which the
deals with conclusive evidence is not conclusive (i.e.,
inferences). probable inferences).
• A deductive argument is one • Hence, an inductive argument is
which claims that its conclusion one whose conclusion is claimed
follows with necessity. to follow with probability.
• If that claim is not met, then the
argument is said to be invalid.
Deductive Inductive
• All humans are mammals. • Boys are humans.

(General) (Specific)
• Jay is a human. • Girls are humans.
(Specific) (Specific)
• Therefore, Jay is a human • Therefore, boys and girls
(Specific) are humans
(General)
1. Knowing if an Argument Is Valid Is a Valuable Skill
ü Logic is essentially the study of reasoning
or argumentation. We use reason all the
time to draw inferences that are useful to
us. Training ourselves to construct effective
arguments and to spot weak ones is a skill
that helps steer us in the direction of truth
and away from falsehood.
ü Training in logic builds on a foundation of basic
reasoning skills that helps to build a life on
practical reasoning.
2. Logic Is a Foundational Discipline
ü Logic is foundational to any field that makes use of
arguments. It has especially close connections to
mathematics, computer science, and philosophy.
Both Aristotelian logic and modern symbolic logic are
impressive bodies of knowledge that constitute major
intellectual achievements.
3. Good Logic Is an Effective Tool of Persuasion
ü The study of logic provides the knowledge and
skills needed to construct good arguments of
one’s own and evaluate that of others.
4. Logic Helps You Spot Fallacies
ü Fallacious thinking—in the form of
propaganda, exaggeration, misdirection, and
even outright lies—abounds in our culture.
Politicians, pundits, advertisers, and corporate
Image was lifted from: https://seekerproject4se.org/2018/09/23/spotting-logical-
fallacies-logical-fallacy-slippery-slope/
spokespersons attack straw men, appeal to

the majority opinion, promote red herrings, or
oppose a view simply because they dislike the
person who holds it. Familiarity with common
fallacies of this sort helps make you a more
critical reader, listener, and thinker.
Image was lifted from:

http://stabler004.pbworks.com/w/page/49791282/Disciplining%20Rhet
oric
Ponder on the following definitions of critical thinking as cited
from R. Paul (1990):
o Critical thinking is thinking appropriately by reason.
(Harvey Seigel)
o Critical thinking is rational reflective thinking concerned
with what to do or what to believe. (Robert Ennis)
o Critical thinking is disciplined, self-directed thinking which
exemplifies the perfection of thinking appropriate to
particular mode or domain of thinking (Richard Paul)
o Critical thinking is thinking that is self-corrective, sensitive
to context, and relies upon the criteria for the formation of
judgements. (Matthew Lipman)
1. What are the similarities of the four definitions?
2. Based on those definitions, what is critical thinking? How
is it attained?
Here is another definition of critical thinking by Acuña (2004):
o Critical thinking refers to the conscious act of evaluating,
judging and criticizing the worth or value of another
person’s action, belief, behavior, intellectual and rational
product.
o Critical thinking ≠ Meta-cognition
o Critical thinker ≠ Independent thinker
o Critical thinker ≠ Creative thinker
Image was lifted from: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/critical-

thinking-definition-with-examples-2063745
Critical Thinking Meta-cognition
• It refers to the conscious act • It refers to the self-conscious

of evaluating, judging and act of evaluating, judging and
criticizing the worth or value criticizing the worth or value
of another person’s action, of one’s action, belief,
belief, behavior, intellectual behavior intellectual and
and rational product. rational product.
Ø Acuña believes that meta-cognition is what Socrates implied in

his famous adage “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Ø Meta-cognition is the ability to self-reflect which is an essential
component of critical thinking.
Critical Thinker Independent Thinker
• One who is an independent thinker • One who does not accept the truth of any
• Has developed the ability to judge whether statement or belief unless he has examined
the concept is correct, or whether a the evidence for it.
definition is acceptable. • He is not impressed even if the statement or
• He/she can judge whether an argument is belief comes from authoritative sources.
valid or invalid or whether a piece of • One who is not easily swayed and convinced
reasoning is sound or unsound. by any authority figure, but takes the pain in
• He/she can evaluate and criticize his own deciding for himself on the basis of evidence
acts, beliefs, behavior and argument or which belief to accept and which attitude to
reasoning. adopt; or which course of action to take on
• Has reached the level of meta-cognition or the basis of the strength of the argument
the ability to be intellectually self-conscious. supporting it.
• Acuña, Andresito E. (2004). Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques for Critical Thinking. Sixth Edition. UP
Department of Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City
Critical Thinker Creative Thinker
• One who is an independent thinker • One who has developed the ability to bring
• Has developed the ability to judge whether to existence something new like a new
the concept is correct, or whether a solution to an old problem.
definition is acceptable. • He/she has the capacity to invent method or
• He/she can judge whether an argument is devise like new art form
valid or invalid or whether a piece of • He is also an independent thinker
reasoning is sound or unsound.
• He/she can evaluate and criticize his own
acts, beliefs, behavior and argument or
reasoning.
• Has reached the level of meta-cognition or
the ability to be intellectually self-conscious.
There can be no doubt that the knowledge of
logic is of considerable practical importance for
everyone who desires to think and infer correctly.
Alfred Tarski
• Acuña, Andresito E. Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques for Critical Thinking. Sixth Edition. UP
Department of Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004)
• Bauzon, Priscillano T. A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy with Islamic and Islamic
Values, National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011)
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of Education for
the LET.
• Bauzon, Prisicllano. Logic for Filipinos, National Book Store, Mandaluyong City (2013)
• Copi, Irving and Cohen, Carl, and McMahon, Kenneth. Introduction to Logic. 14th edition. USA (2011)
• Dy, Manuel. Contemporary Social Philosophy Kaths Publishing, Makati City (2012)
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to Logic and Philosophy by Dr. Socrates Ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one.
Origin and Meaning of Philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• Espartinez-Santiago, Alma (2014). Logic: Art of Reasoning. 7th edition. C&E Publishing, Inc.
• Hurley, Patrick, Introduction to Logic, Cengage Learning, Singapore (2011)
• Maboloc, Christopher Ryan B. Elements of Logic, An Integrative Approach, Rex Book Store, Manila (2012)
• Web references:
• https://www.roangelo.net/logwitt/philosophy-origin.html#
• https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nature_log.html
• Westacott, Emrys. (2020, February 11). 5 Good Reasons to Study Logic. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/good-reasons-to-study-logic-2670416
Introduction to Logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ChzesrWKI&t=46s
What is critical thinking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0yEAE5owWw&t=25s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cum3k-Wglfw&t=29s
What is Philosophy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY
What is Logic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ChzesrWKI
What is Critical thinking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0yEAE5owWw
GED0073

Ideas and Terms
OBJECTIVES

- Stress the relation of the three operations to the expressions of ideas
- Analyze the terms and its real representations
- Comprehend the different rules and structures present within the expression of
judgment
• All government officials
are honest.
• Mocha Uson is a
government official.
What do
you
• Therefore, Mocha Uson is
honest. think?
• Processing:
• What division of logic is presented? Why?
• What type of logic was used? Why?
• Is the conclusion logical? Why? Why not?
What are the
What does it mean
processes involved
to think logically?
in logical thinking?
How can it be
applied?
Three basic mental operations
I. Simple apprehension
II. Judgment
III. Reason
ü Logical thinking involves three basic
mental operations:
1. Simple apprehension / Apprehension
2. Judgment
3. Reason
ü They are also referred to as the Three Acts

of the Mind or Intellect.
ü It is the act by which the mind without judging,
forms a concept of something.
ü A procedure where the mind grasps a thing
without affirming or denying it.
ü Before the mind can proceed to determine the
truth or falsity of anything it has first to
apprehend that something.
ü In other words, the mind understands the
general meaning of a thing without affirming or
denying anything about it.
ü Ex. Think of tree.
‘The Thinker’
sculpture-by-Rodin
ü How is it done? How can we sense a thing without
judging it?
ü Think about milk tea. What comes to your mind is your
apprehension of tree. It is a product of any or
combinations of the following:
ü Senses (sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste)
ü Imagination
ü Common sense
ü Memory
ü Apprehension occurs when you encounter a thing (e.g.
tree) and you came up with an idea of what that thing is.
ü Apprehension occurs when you encounter a thing (e.g.
tree) and you came up with an idea of what that thing is.
Idea Term
• Internal product • A term is an external
• Intellectual image/ representation of an idea.
representation of a thing • Word
• The building blocks of • Sensible conventional signs
knowledge. expressive of an idea.
• Ex. Idea of a tree: something • Ex. The term that can be used
that has roots, trunk, branches for something that has roots,
and leaves trunk, branches and leaves is
tree.
Bear in mind:
For every idea there is a
State the terms describe in idea.
1. Sticky, sweet and soft corresponding term.
2. Hard, cold and cheap Words, however, are not
3. Game, sport necessarily terms. Thus,
4. Brave, bold, courageous there is no one to one
5. Hurt, offend, insult correspondence between
6. Sincere, honest, frank terms and words. A word
7. Educate, instruct, train may not necessarily
8. Seductive, tempting, attractive represent an idea but all
9. Weary, tired, exhausted terms are words that
10. Memo, note, letter contain corresponding
ideas.
First Intention Second Intention
• Ideas that express objects • ideas that express what they
not only as they are in the are in the mind. Concepts
mind but also as they are in that express things that has
reality. mental existence These
• Examples: The idea of a things that exist as a result
clinic, a hospital, or a house. of being thought of.
• Examples: Pegasus, Batman,
and Superman
Concrete Abstract
• An idea that expresses a • An idea that expresses form
form as inhering in a only, separated from its
subject. subject.
• Examples: beautiful lady, • Examples: beauty, brilliance,

brilliant lawyer, excellent health and wealth
teacher and caring nurse
Absolute Connotative
• An idea that expresses a • An idea that expresses an
thing as a substance or an accident or quality inhering
independent reality. in a substance.
• Examples: man, planet, • Examples: teacher,

ocean anesthesiologist,
pediatrician and driver
Positive Negative
• An idea that expresses a • An idea that expresses a
thing according to what it is thing according to what it is
or what it has. not or what it lacks.
• Example: rich, educated, • Examples: poor, uneducated,

perfect, skilled imperfect, unskilled
• The sum total of all qualities, which
constitute the meaning of a term. The
comprehension of a term expresses the
Comprehension essence of the object. The comprehension
therefore is the meaning.
• Example: Man = rational animal
• The sum total of all individuals or objects to

which the comprehension of a term is
Extension applied.
• Example: Man = Peter, Paul, John
Univocal Equivocal Analogous
• A term that is used • A term that is used • A term that

in exactly the same with totally expresses not
sense and meaning different meanings exactly the same
in at least two in at least two but not totally
occurrences. occurrences. different meanings.
Example: Peter is a • Example: The rebel • Example: good
nurse. John is a base is located at teacher, good
nurse. Man is in the base of the clinical instructor,
this case is mountain. Base in and good robber.
univocal. this case is Good in this case is
equivocal. analogous.
1. Singular- refers to a definite individual or thing.
The indicators are:
a. The definite article “The” example: The student is
comatose.
b. Proper names – examples: Cubao, Michael, Luneta
c. Demonstrative Pronouns/Adjectives- examples: this,
that, these, those
d. Superlative Adjectives – example: most, best, worst
e. Personal Pronouns – examples: he, her, we, our
2. Particular- refers to an indefinite part of a whole.
The indicators are;
a. Indefinite article “a” or “an”
b. Use of numbers: either ordinals or cardinals such
as: ten, three, sixty, second, third
c. General Ideas – examples: Filipinos are
hospitable. Men are stronger than women
d. Indefinite Pronouns/Adjectives-examples: some,
few, several
3. Universal – refers to all individuals signified by the
term.
The indicators are;
a. Universal Quantifiers – examples: all, each,
everyone
b. Universal Ideas – examples: Man is rational, A
giraffe is an animal with a long neck.
ü It is the as the act by which the mind affirms
or denies an attribute of a subject.
ü The mental operation by which we predicate
something of a subject. Were you to think, "That
sunset is beautiful" or "Baseball is the all-
American sport" is to make a judgment. The
verbal expression of judgment is the statement
(or proposition)
ü The act of the mind where two apprehended
terms are joined then affirmed or denied.
‘The Thinker’
sculpture-by-Rodin
ü Proposition is a verbal expression that can be regarded as
true or false (but not both). It is a statement is a
sentence with a truth value.
ü Often referred to as statement or sentence
ü Ex. Roddy is rude. Fake news causes misinformation.
ü Note that a sentence is considered to be a statement even
if the truth-value of the statement is not known so long as
it is known that the sentence has a truth value.
ü E.g. “Tomorrow it will rain” is a proposition or statement
even though its truth value is not known today.
Determine if each sentence is proposition or not.
1. The poor are hungry.

2. Do you know how to play basketball?
3. There is life in other parts of the galaxy.
4. Just follow, don’t ask.
5. He is a philanthropist.
ü It is the act by which from two given judgments, the mind
passes to a third judgment distinct from these, but
implicitly contained in them.
ü The mental operation by which we draw conclusions from
other information. If you were to think, "I like to look at that
sunset, because I enjoy beautiful things, and that sunset is
beautiful" you would be reasoning. The verbal expression of
reasoning is the logical argument.
ü The act of the mind where we draw a conclusion from a
given set of validly drawn premises.
ü Any group of propositions of which one is claimed to
follow logically from the others.
ü In logic, the normal sense of "argument," such as my
“neighbor yelling to me about my trashcans” is not
termed "an argument" in logic.
ü By "argument," we mean a demonstration or a proof of
some statement, not emotional language. E.g., "That bird
is a crow; therefore, it's black.".
Determine if each sentence is an argument or not.
1. Since the frontliners do not have adequate personal
protective equipment, they are at risk of contracting
the disease.
2. Ordering the law enforces to shoot a violator dead is a
violation of the law.
3. Volunteerism is a form of heroism and must be
emulated.
4. The disease is very contagious so proper hygiene is
very important.
5. Loyalty to the country does not mean loyalty to the
president.
Products of
Boys, Girls, Humans IDEAS apprehension
Boys are humans. PROPOSITIONS/ Products of

Girls are humans. STATEMENTS judgment
Boys and girls are humans. Argument

Products of
reasoning
Department of Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004)
Values, National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011)
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of
Education for the LET.
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one
origin and meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• Web references:
• http://mikenael.blogspot.com/2010/11/lesson-3-ideas-terms-and-propositions.html
• http://thelogiccafe.net/logic/ref1.htm
Three Acts of the Mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZtww50W9aY
GED0073
Module 3
Propositions and Arguments
Module 3 Subtopic 1
Propositions
Content
Propositions
1. Definition
2. Parts
3. Forms
4. Non-Propositions
5. Analyzing Truth Values
1. Definition
q One of the reasons to study logic and critical thinking is to learn

how to evaluate and make good arguments.
q “Arguments”, in this context, refer to assertions that are
supported by evidence.
q Arguments are composed of propositions.
asserts supports the assertion

I need a larger pair of shoes because my feet hurt.
a proposition a proposition
1. Definition
q A proposition is a complete thought, normally expressed in a

complete sentence, making a statement that is either true or
false.
q It is a statement with a truth value.
q A statement has truth value if it is true or false at any given
point, but never both.
1. The Philippines rarely gets typhoons.

2. Yellow is my brother’s favorite color.
3. Weightlifting will make men go bald faster.
4. The atomic weight of Nitrogen is 14.03.
2. Parts
q Propositions follow the standard components of a complete

sentence in the English language.
q This is to say that it contains a subject and a predicate.
q It is also common to find copula/copular verbs within
propositions.
subject predicate
Dorothy is a caring nurse.
copular verb
3. Forms
q Propositions can be simple (one proposition) or compound (two

or more propositions).
q Forms of compound propositions:
Conjunctive Form Disjunctive/Alternative Form Hypothetical/Conditional
Form
• Assume A and B are two • Assume A and B are two • Assume A and B are two
propositions. propositions. propositions.
• Common forms include: • Common forms include: • Common forms include:
- A and B - A or B - If A, then B
- A while B - Either A or B - A implies B
- A, but B • Example: Either he has the flu - A only if B
- A, yet B or he has allergies. - A when B
• Example: He has the flu while • Example: If his nose is runny,
also suffering from allergies. then he has the flu.
4. Non-Propositions
q In the English language, sentences can be declarative,

interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.
q Propositions are declarative sentences because these have truth
value.
q Interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences do not
have truth value.
1. My dinner this evening is pizza.

2. Should I have pizza for dinner?
3. Buy me a pizza for dinner.
4. Yes, pizza!
q There are three principles used in analyzing truth values:
1. Principle of Identity
ü If a statement is true then it is true. If a statement is false then it is
false.
ü This means that the truth value of a statement is stable over time.
Apples grow from apple trees.

This statement is true and will retain its trueness over time unless a
mutation occurs where apples can grow from other plants or other
objects. Barring that, apples will always grow from apple trees.
2. Principle of Non-contradiction
ü A statement cannot be true and false at the same time and in the
same respect.
ü This is useful when putting contradictory or inconsistent statements
together.
Contradictory statements:
The course code for this subject is GED0073. (affirmative)
The course code for this subject is not GED0073. (denial)
If two statements are contradictory, it follows that if the affirmative is true then the
denial is always false; or if the affirmative is false then the denial is always true.
2. Principle of Non-contradiction
ü A statement cannot be true and false at the same time and in the
same respect.
ü This is useful when putting contradictory and inconsistent statements
together.
Inconsistent statements:
The course code for this subject is GED0073.
The course code for this subject is GED0001.
If two statements are inconsistent, this means that both statements may be false but
cannot be true at the same time because one subject should not have two codes.
3. Principle of Excluded Middle

ü There is no middle ground. A statement can only have one of two
values: either true or false and nothing else.
ü The third value is probability but it is excluded from the consideration
and analysis of statements in two-valued deductive logic.
ü This principle does not apply in empirical statements, calculus and
statistics.
References
Department of Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004).
Values, National Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011).
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of Education
for the LET.
• Bauzon, Prisicllano. Logic for Filipinos, National Book Store, Mandaluyong City (2013).
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one
origin and meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
GED0073
Module 3
Propositions and Arguments
Module 3 Subtopic 2
Arguments
Content
Arguments
1. Definition
2. Recognizing Arguments
3. Diagramming Arguments
4. Basic Kinds
5. Evaluating Arguments
1. Definition
q An argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which

one is claimed to follow from the others.
q But an argument is not merely a collection of propositions; it is a
cluster with a structure that captures or exhibits some inference.
q To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.
q Therefore, an argument is a set of premises together with a
conclusion.
I need a larger pair of shoes because my feet hurt.
My feet hurt, therefore, I need a larger pair of shoes.

1. Definition
• A proposition which gives reasons, grounds,

or evidence for accepting some other
Premise proposition, called the conclusion.
• Propositions, which are affirmed (or assumed)
as providing support for the conclusion.
• A proposition, which is purported to be

established on the basis of other propositions.
Conclusion • The proposition that is affirmed on the basis
of the other propositions of the argument.
q In general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove or justify

something; if it does not do so, it does not contain an argument.
q Two conditions must be fulfilled for a passage to purport to prove something
Factual Claim Inferential Claim

• At least one of the statements must • The passage expresses a certain kind
claim to present evidence or of reasoning process – that
reasons. something supports or implies
something or that something
follows from something else.
• Either explicit or implicit
Explicit Inferential Claims Implicit Inferential Claims

• Usually asserted by premise or • Exists if there is an inferential
conclusion indicator words (thus, relationship between the
since, because, hence, therefore, statements in a passage, but the
etc.). passage contains no indicator
• Example: Mad cow disease is words.
spread by feeding parts of infected • Example: The genetic modification
animals to cows, and this practice of food is risky business. Genetic
has yet to be completely eradicated. engineering can introduce
Thus, mad cow disease continues to unintended changes into the DNA of
pose a threat to people who eat the food-producing organism, and
beef. these changes can be toxic to the
consumer.
Premise Indicators Conclusion Indicators

q Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:
1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

2. Look for premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
3. Look for argument in context.
4. Bear in mind that premises and conclusions are not
always stated in declarative form.
5. Watch out for unstated propositions.
6. Recognize the typical kinds of nonarguments.
Non-
Expository
inferential Illustrations
passages
passages
Conditional
Explanations
statements
q Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:
1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

2. Look for premise indicators and conclusion indicators.
3. Look for argument in context.
4. Bear in mind that premises and conclusions are not
always stated in declarative form.
5. Watch out for unstated propositions.
6. Recognize the typical kinds of nonarguments.
q Diagrams are useful for analyzing an argument.
Basic symbols used:

1. Arrow ( ): represents a single step in reasoning, i.e. the
relationship between a premise and a conclusion.
2. Plus sign (+): used to join premises which lead to the
conclusion.
3. Bracket ( ): neither premise supports the conclusion
independently; the premises conjointly support the
conclusion.
If gun ownership leads to Politics depends on morality.

violence then gun control Morality depends on religion.
should be implemented. Therefore, politics depends on religion.
1. People have a right to life.

2. People have a right to defend their
lives.
3. Gun control violates the right of self-
defense.
4. The government should not restrict gun
ownership.
q General guide to diagramming arguments:
1. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or

complex, the all-important first step is to find the conclusion.
2. The conclusion can occur anywhere in the paragraph, especially if
the passage has not been revised for clarity.
3. Premise indicators often indicate the presence of reasons.
Conclusion indicators often indicate the statement which logically
follows from the reasons given. Equal status indicators (and, but,
yet, however, moreover, in addition, nevertheless, not only, a
semicolon) often indicate that two or more premises or two or
more conclusions carry equal status in an argument.
4. Basic Kinds
qThere are two types of basic arguments: deductive arguments and

inductive arguments.
qThese types are based on how well their premises support their
conclusions.
qThe simplest way to differentiate the two is: 1) if the premises of an
argument prove the conclusion, it is deductive; 2) if the premise of
an argument does not prove but merely supports the conclusion, it
is inductive.
4. Basic Kinds
A detective investigating a murder notices that

nothing was taken from the victim’s wallet. He might
reason as follows:
If robbery was the motive, the money would have been
taken, but the money was not taken. So robbery was
not the motive.
4. Basic Kinds
A scientist investigating an outbreak of disease

examines a random sample of the victims. She argues
that:
All of them had recently eaten strawberries from
California and, as far as I can tell, the people in the
sample had nothing else in common. I therefore
conclude that something in the strawberries was
causing the disease in all the victims.
qDeductive arguments are evaluated based on validity, truth, and

soundness.
qInductive arguments are evaluated based on strength and cogency.
q“Valid” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is

completely different from how we commonly understand the word
“valid”.
qValidity in this context is concerned with how logical is the
construction of a deductive argument argument.
qIts structure must follow this logic: the truth of the premises
logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion. It wants to see
whether the provided conclusion is the logical next step following
the premises.
Anyone who lives in Metro Manila also lives in Luzon.

John does not live in Luzon.
Therefore, he does not live in Metro Manila.
Valid
John lives in Luzon.
Therefore, he lives in Metro Manila.
Invalid
qAn argument is valid if the premises and conclusion are related to
each other in the right way so that if the premises were true, then
the conclusion would have to be true as well. -IEP
John owns either a PS4 or a Nintendo Switch.

John does not own a PS4.
Therefore, John owns a Nintendo Switch.
Valid

All crows are black. Only crows are black.

John is black. John is black.
Therefore, John is a crow. Therefore, John is a crow.
Invalid Valid

q“Truth” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is refers to

truth values.
qAfter checking the validity of a deductive argument, it is now
important to check whether the premises are actually true or false.
qWhen checking for validity, we assume that the premises are true to
be able to see if there is a logical flow from premise to conclusion.
qBut when we check for truth after establishing validity, we take away
the assumption and verify the actual truth of the premises.

This argument has truth.
This argument has falsity.
qWhen we check for truth, we look at the actual truth value of the
premises and conclusion.

This argument has falsity. This argument has truth.
qWhen we check for truth, we do not look for truth value.

qWe only want to see if there is a smooth flow of logic from premise
to conclusion.
q“Sound” in the context of evaluating deductive arguments is

“sound”.
qSoundness in this context is concerned with a deductive argument
having a valid structure and true truth value.
qThe best kind of deductive argument is one that achieves
soundness.
Sound = Valid + True


This argument is sound.
This argument is unsound.
qA sound argument must have a valid structure (the premises and
conclusion must relate to each other in the right way).
qBut the premises in the argument must all be actually true in terms
of their truth value.

This argument is unsound. This argument is unsound.
qA sound argument must have a valid structure (the premises and

conclusion must relate to each other in the right way).
qBut the premises in the argument must all be actually true in terms
of their truth value.
q“Strong” in the context of evaluating inductive arguments is

“strong”.
qStrength in this context is concerned with how the premises make a
conclusion more likely in an inductive argument.
Around 90% of humans are right-handed.

John is a human.
Therefore, John is right-handed.
This argument is strong.
Roughly 51.9% of people all over the world are male.
Person A is one of the world’s people.
Therefore, Person A is male.
This argument is weak.
qA strong inductive argument uses premises that make its conclusion
more likely.
q“Cogent” in the context of evaluating inductive arguments is

“cogent”.
qCogency in this context is concerned with how the premises are
actually true in terms of truth value. Its concern with the actual
truth value of premises is similar with that of the truth concept in
deductive arguments.
qBut cogency is also concerned about how inductive arguments must
also be strong.
Cogent = Strong + True

Around 90% of humans are right-handed.

John is a human.
Therefore, John is right-handed.
This argument is cogent.
Roughly 51.9% of people all over the world are male.
Person A is one of the world’s people.
Therefore, Person A is male.
This argument is not cogent.
qA cogent inductive argument needs to have premises that are all
true in terms of truth value.
qIt also needs to be a strong argument.
References
• Acuña, Andresito E. Philosophical Analysis: Advanced Techniques for Critical Thinking. Sixth Edition. UP Department of
Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004).
• Bauzon, Priscillano T. A Comprehensive Handbook in Ethics of Moral Philosophy with Islamic and Islamic Values, National
Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011).
• Bauzon, Priscillano, Handbook in Social Philosophy with Review Materials in Social Philosophy of Education for the LET.
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one origin and
meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/#:~:text=If%20the%20arguer%20believes%20that,then%20the%20argument%20is%20inductive.
• http://www2.hawaii.edu/~pine/logicweb/Phil110/Phil110/validsup.htm
GED0073
Module 4
Informal Logic and Falacies
Module 4 Subtopic 1
Informal Logic and Fallacies
Content
1. Definition of Informal Logic

2. Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic
3. Definition of Fallacies
4. Types of Fallacies
5. Classifications of Informal Fallacies
1. Definition of Informal Logic
❑ Informal logic is a broad term for any of the various methods of analyzing
and evaluating arguments used in everyday life as opposed to arguments
used in academics.
❑ Also known as non-formal logic or critical thinking.
❑ It is considered as an attempt to develop a logic that can analyze and
assess the "informal" reasoning that occurs in everyday language contexts
in, for example, political debates, legal proceedings, social commentaries,
opinion pieces featured in the mass media (in newspapers, magazines,
television, the Internet, etc.), etc.
❑ It is the study of various types of arguments in their natural setting –
ordinary discourse. This logic identifies, interprets, analyzes and evaluates
arguments in various language games without using any of the templates
of formal logic. (Acuña, 2004)
2. Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic
Formal Informal
•It is particularly •Deals primarily

concerned with with the content
the form of the of the argument
argument more and less so with
than the content. its form.
❑ A fallacy is a defect in an argument that consists of something other than

false premises alone. Such defects comprise either mistakes in reasoning
or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good.
❑ It is a type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a mistake
in reasoning.
❑ It is an argument that is psychologically or emotionally persuasive but
logically incorrect.
Formal Informal
• A formal fallacy is one that may • Informal fallacies are those that
be identified by merely can be detected only by
examining the form or structure examining the content of the
of an argument. Fallacies of this argument.
kind are found only in deductive • They are patterns of mistakes
arguments that have identifiable that are made in the everyday
forms. uses of language. Informal
fallacies arise from confusions
concerning the content of the
language used.
Everything that runs has feet. Premise 1: Every A has B

The Pasig River runs very swiftly. Premise 2: A
Therefore, the Pasig River has feet. Conclusion: Therefore, B.
❑ This example has a valid form.

❑ However, if you look at its content, it creates a fallacy due to the different
meanings of the word “run”.
❑ The presence of this content-based error makes this an informal fallacy.
Franklin Drilon, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Premise 1: A are B

Richard Gordon are Philippine Senators. Hidden Premise 2: A are C
Therefore, it must be the case that all senior Conclusion: Therefore C must be
citizens must be Philippine Senators. B
❑ This example has no problems in its actual content. The premise makes
sense.
❑ However, the form of the argument is invalid.
❑ This invalid form makes it a formal fallacy.
Feathers are light. Premise 1: A are B

Light cannot be dark. Premise 2: B cannot be C
Therefore, feathers cannot be dark. Conclusion: Therefore, A cannot be C.
❑ Logically, this makes sense in terms of its form.

❑ However, if you look at its content, it creates a fallacy due to the different
meanings of the word “light”.
❑ The presence of this content-based error makes this an informal fallacy.
❑ Keep in mind, content-based errors are not just about how certain words
can have multiple meanings.
5. Classification of Informal Fallacies
A. Fallacies of B. Fallacies of Weak C. Fallacies of D. Fallacies of

Relevance Induction Presumption Ambiguity
• Appeal to Force • Appeal to • Begging the • Equivocation
• Appeal to Pity Unqualified Question • Amphiboly
• Appeal to People Authority • Complex Question • Composition
• Argument Against • Appeal to • False Dichotomy • Division
the Person Ignorance • Suppressed
• Fallacy of Accident • Hasty Evidence
• Strawman Fallacy Generalization
• Missing the Point • False Cause
• Red Herring • Slippery Slope
• Weak Analogy
A. Fallacies of Relevance
❑ The most numerous and the most frequently encountered.
❑ The premises of the argument are simply not relevant to the conclusion.
However, because they are made to appear to be relevant, they may
deceive.
1. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum)
❑ Occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells
that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him
or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion.
❑ The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or
psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either an
individual or a group of people.
Peppa Pig is the best show on TV;
and if you don’t believe it, I’m
going to call my big brother over
here and he’s going to beat you
up.
2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
❑ Occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely
evoking pity from the reader or listener. This pity may be directed toward
the arguer or toward some third party.
❑ It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism, or
mercy, rather than on reason.
You need to let me pass the

subject. If you don’t, I will
lose my scholarship and
would not be able to
continue studying.
3. Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
❑ An informal fallacy in which the support given for some conclusion is an
appeal to popular belief.
❑ It is a fallacy because, instead of evidence and rational argument, the
speaker (or writer) relies on expressive language and other devices
calculated to excite enthusiasm for or against some cause.
You want to grow up and be

just like Wonder Woman,
don’t you? Then eat your
vegetables.
4. Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)
❑ Rejecting an argument by attacking the person who offered it – either in
pointing out a character flaw to imputing evil intentions.
❑ The thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at some person who
defends the conclusion in dispute.
I don’t want to work

together with him in this
department. He’s a filthy
atheist.
5. Fallacy of Accident
❑ It is committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not
intended to cover.
❑ Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the
premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the
conclusion.
Visayans love to make jokes.

Therefore, the President should
not be punished when he makes
rape jokes.
6. Strawman Fallacy
❑ It is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument,
and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been
demolished.
❑ By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it
down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been
knocked down as well.
The people are pushing the government

to do mass vaccination. Mass testing is so
expensive and sometimes are ineffective.
For this reason, the government should
refuse mass testing.
7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)
❑ This fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one
particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely
related to the correct conclusion, is drawn.
❑ Ignoratio elenchi means “ignorance of the proof.” The arguer is ignorant of
the logical implications of his or her own premises and, as a result, draws a
conclusion that misses the point entirely.
Crimes of theft and juvenile

delinquencies have been increasing at
an alarming rate lately. The conclusion
is obvious: We must reinstate the
death penalty immediately.
8. Red Herring
❑ The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention
of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but
sometimes subtly related one. He or she then finishes by either drawing a
conclusion about this different issue or by merely presuming that some
conclusion has been established.
Some people are asking for stricter

requirements for a driver’s license.
However, road accidents happen
everywhere and anytime. Data shows a
lot of road accidents happen on a daily
basis. Since most of these are caused
by drivers’ errors, they could have been
prevented if they were more careful.
B. Fallacies of Weak Induction

❑ Occurs not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion,
as is the case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because the
connection between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to
support the conclusion.
❑ A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the
conclusion.
1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
❑ Occurs when a cited authority or witness lacks credibility. There are several
reasons why an authority or witness might lack credibility. The person
might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might
have a motive to lie or disseminate “misinformation,” or might lack the
requisite ability to perceive or recall.
I think we should buy that new

gaming phone released by
Samsung. Kris Aquino is
endorsing it after all.
2. Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
❑ This fallacy occurs based on the notion that if you cannot prove something
is true, it is automatically false. The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved or something that has not yet been proved.
Since you haven't been able to

prove your innocence, I must
assume you're guilty.
3. Hasty Generalization
❑ The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is
not representative of the group. Such a likelihood may arise if the sample
is either too small or not randomly selected.
Indonesia has the death penalty, so

their crime rate is low. Therefore,
all countries ought to implement
the death penalty to deter
criminality.
4. False Cause (Non Causa Pro Causa)
❑ The fallacy of false cause occurs whenever the link between premises and
conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably
does not exist. Whenever an argument is suspected of committing the
false cause fallacy, the reader or listener should be able to say that the
conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X
probably does not cause Y at all.
There are so many poor people in

the Philippines who can hardly
make ends meet. It’s the
government’s fault why there are
so many people living in poverty.
5. Slippery Slope
❑ The fallacy of slippery slope occurs when the conclusion of an argument
rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to
think that the chain reaction will actually take place.
Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil

rights and should be summarily abandoned. If
pornography is outlawed, censorship of newspapers
and news magazines is only a short step away. After
that there will be censorship of textbooks, political
speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by
university professors. Complete mind control by the
central government will be the inevitable result.
6. Weak Analogy
❑ The fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong
enough to support the conclusion that is drawn.
Guns are like hammers. They are

both tools with metal parts that
could be used to kill someone. If
people can have hammers, they
should be allowed to have guns too.
C. Fallacies of Presumption
❑ These fallacies arise not because the premises are irrelevant to the
conclusion or provide insufficient reason for believing the conclusion but
because the premises presume what they purport to prove.
❑ This is any fallacy in which the conclusion depends on a tacit assumption
that is dubious, unwarranted, or false.
1. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
❑ The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer
creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support
for the conclusion by leaving out a possibly false (shaky) key premise, by
restating a possibly false premise as the conclusion, or by reasoning in a
circle.
❑ Petitio principii means “request for the source.”
❑ The actual source of support for the conclusion is not apparent, and so the
argument is said to beg the question.
Avatar is the greatest movie of all time

because it is the number one top grossing
film of all time.
2. Complex Question
❑ The fallacy of complex question is committed when two (or more)
questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is
then given to both of them.
❑ This is designed to trap the respondent into acknowledging something that
he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.
I asked where you hid the marijuana you

were smoking. You replied, “Under the
bed.” It follows that you were in fact
smoking marijuana.
3. False Dichotomy
❑ The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when a disjunctive (either…or)
premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones
available, and the arguer then eliminates the undesirable alternative,
leaving the desirable one as the conclusion.
Either you support the Liberal Party or you are part of the
problem. Surely, you don’t want to be a part of the problem.
4. Suppressed Evidence
❑ This fallacy is committed when the arguer ignores evidence.
❑ The most common occurrence of the suppressed evidence fallacy appears
in inferences based on advertisements. Nearly every ad neglects to
mention certain negative features of the product advertised. As a result,
an observer who sees or hears an advertisement and then draws a
conclusion from it may commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence.
The ad for Kentucky Fried Chicken says,

“Buy a bucket of chicken and have a barrel
of fun!” Therefore, if we buy a bucket of
that chicken, we will be guaranteed to
have lots of fun.
D. Fallacies of Ambiguity
❑ This is an informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings
of words or phrases within an argument.
❑ Also known as a “sophism”.
1. Equivocation
❑ The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument
depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or
implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. Such arguments are
either invalid or have a false premise, and in either case they are unsound.
Any law can be repealed by the legislative

authority. The Law of Gravity is a law.
Therefore, the Law of Gravity can be
repealed by the legislative authority.
2. Amphiboly
❑ The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when the arguer misinterprets an
ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty
interpretation. The original statement is usually asserted by someone
other than the arguer, and the ambiguity usually arises from a mistake in
grammar or punctuation.
❑ Because of this ambiguity, the statement may be understood in two clearly
distinguishable ways. The arguer typically selects the unintended
interpretation and proceeds to draw a conclusion based on it.
Professor Cruz said that he will give a lecture

about heart failure in the biology lecture hall.
It must be the case that a number of heart
failures have occurred there recently.
3. Composition
❑ The fallacy of composition is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the
parts of something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs
when it is argued that because the parts have a certain attribute, it follows
that the whole has that attribute, too, and the situation is such that the
attribute in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to
whole.
Each atom in this teacup is invisible.

Therefore, this teacup is invisible.
4. Division
❑ The fallacy of division is the exact reverse of composition. As composition
goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. The fallacy is
committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the
erroneous transference of an attribute from a whole (or a class) onto its
parts (or members).
Freemasonry as a fraternity is over 300

years old. Mr. Suico is a freemason.
Therefore, Mr. Suico is more than 300
years old.
References
Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004).
Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011).
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one origin and
meaning of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
GED0073

Categorical Propositions
OBJECTIVE

- Make the students comprehend the different rules and structures present
within the expression of judgment
• What is deductive logic?
• How is it distinguished from
inductive logic?
• Can this argument be considered
What do
deductive? you
1. Whales are mammals.
2. All mammals breathe by means of think?
lungs.
3. Whales breathe by means of lungs.
I. Categorical Propositions
A.Definition
B. Kinds
C. Quantifiers
D.Attributes
ü Categorical propositions are the fundamental
elements, the building blocks of argument, in the
classical account of deductive logic.
ü These are proposition that relates two classes or
categories which means that propositions assert
that either all or part of the class denoted by the
subject term is included in or excluded from the
class denoted by the predicate term.
ü Statements that relate two classes, or categories
in a subject-predicate relationship Aristotle was the first to
study ways of arguing and to
formalize logic as a discipline
*Class refers to the collection of all objects that Image was lifted from: http://cstl-
cla.semo.edu/hhill/pl120/notes/categorical_proposi
have some specified characteristic in common. tions.htm
Parts of Categorical Propositions
1. Subject (S) -- that of which the assertion is made
2. Predicate (P) -- that which is affirmed or denied of the
Subject
3. Copula -- the verb is or are which connects the Subject
and the Predicate
4. Quantifier -- words indicating quantity, universal or
particular (e.g. all, no, some )
Ex. All humans are mammals.
(quantifier) (subject) (copula) (predicate)
Analyze the argument
(1) No athletes are vegetarians.
(2) All football players are athletes.
(3)Therefore no football players are vegetarians.
* This argument contains three * Each premise affirms, * The relations of the classes
categorical propositions. These or denies, that some expressed in these
are about the (1)class of all class S is included in propositions yield an
athletes, (2) the class of all some argument that is certainly
vegetarians, and (3) the class of other class P, in whole valid: If those premises are
all football players. or in part true, that conclusion must be
true.
ü Since any categorical proposition asserts that either all or part of
the class denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded
from the class denoted by the predicate term, it follows that there
are exactly four types of categorical propositions:
1. Universal affirmative propositions
2. Universal negative propositions
3. Particular affirmative propositions
4. Particular negative propositions
*A categorical proposition that expresses these relations with complete
clarity is called a standard-form categorical proposition. A categorical
proposition is in standard form if and only if it is a substitution instance of
one of the four forms.
Representation of Categorical Propositions
ü Categorical propositions are often represented with
diagrams, using two interlocking circles to stand for
the two classes involved called Venn Diagram.
ü Venn Diagram
ü Named after the English logician and
mathematician, John Venn (1834–1923), who
invented them
ü Iconic representation of a categorical proposition
or of an argument, used to display their logical
forms by means of overlapping circles.
1. Universal affirmative propositions
ü Assert that the whole of one class is included or contained in
another class
ü Schematically written as All S is P which means that all
members of S are said to be also members of P.
ü They are also called A propositions.
Ex. All politicians are liars.

2. Universal negative propositions
ü Assert that the subject class (S) is wholly excluded from the
predicate class (P)
ü Schematically written as No S is P which means that all
ü They are also called E propositions.
Ex. No politicians are liars.

ü Assert that the part of the subject class (S) is included in the
predicate class (P)
ü Schematically written as Some S is P which means that all
ü They are also called I propositions.
Ex. Some politicians are liars.

ü Assert that the part of the subject class (S) is included in the
predicate class (P)
ü Schematically written as Some S is P which means that all
ü They are also called I propositions.

4. Particular negative propositions
ü Assert that the part of the subject class (S) is excluded in the
predicate class (P)
ü Schematically written as Some S is not P which means that all
ü They are also called O propositions.

Kinds of Categorical propositions
1. Quality
ü An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether
the proposition affirms or denies class inclusion. Thus every
categorical proposition is either universal in quality or particular in
quality.
ü If the proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete

or partial, its quality is affirmative.
ü If the proposition denies class inclusion, whether complete or
partial, its quality is negative..
2. Quantity
ü An attribute of every categorical proposition, determined by whether
the proposition refers to all members or only to some members of
the class designated by its subject term. Thus every categorical
proposition is either universal in quantity or particular in quantity.
ü If the proposition refers to all members of the class designated by

its subject term, its quantity is universal.
ü If the proposition refers only to some members of the class
designated by its subject term, its quantity is particular.
3. Distribution
ü An attribute that describes the relationship between a
categorical proposition and each one of its terms, indicating
whether or not the proposition makes a statement about
every member of the class represented by a given term.
ü A proposition distributes a term if it refers to all members of

the class designated by that term.
In A, E, I, and O propositions, the terms that are distributed
vary, as follows:
ü A proposition distributes a term if it refers to all members of
the class designated by that term.
ü E propositions (universal negatives) distribute both their
subject and their predicate terms.
ü In I propositions (particular affirmatives) both subject and
predicate terms are undistributed.
ü In O propositions (particular negatives) the subject term is not
distributed, but the predicate term is distributed.
I. For each of the following propositions, identify the subject
and predicate terms, the quality, and the quantity. Then name
the form (A, E, I, O). After that, draw a Venn diagram that will
represent each proposition.
1. Some movie stars are good actors.
2. Some movie stars are not good actors.
3. Some baseball players are not golfers.
4. All graduate students are broke people.
5. All phones are communication devices.
There can be no doubt that the knowledge of logic is
of considerable practical importance for everyone
who desires to think and infer correctly.
Alfred Tarski
Philosophy, UP Diliman, Quezon City, (2004)
Bookstore, Mandaluyong City, (2011)
• Ebo, Socrates. Introduction to logic and philosophy by dr socrates ebo, federal university otuoke. Chapter one origin and meaning
of philosophy The Origin of Philosophy. (2018).
• Web references:
• http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/geometry/categorical_propositions.xhtml
• http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/hhill/pl120/notes/categorical_propositions.htm
• http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/Logic%20SP%202015/11.pdf
Categorical Proposition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCUjSlx07uU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eYF41CIHVI

CriticalThinking MIDTERMS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CriticalThinking MIDTERMS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CriticalThinking MIDTERMS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GED0073

Critical Thinking and Logic

■ At the end of the discussion, the learner should be able to:

cosmology and ontology. https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/572238696396400490/

Critical Thinking and Logic

■ At the end of the discussion, the learner should be able to:

Image was lifted from:

This is an example of formal logic

• All humans are mammals. • Boys are humans.

spokespersons attack straw men, appeal to

Image was lifted from:

Image was lifted from: https://www.thebalancecareers.com/critical-

• It refers to the conscious act • It refers to the self-conscious

Ø Acuña believes that meta-cognition is what Socrates implied in

What is critical thinking?

What is Critical thinking?

Critical Thinking and Logic

■ At the end of the discussion, the learner should be able to:

ü They are also referred to as the Three Acts

• Examples: beautiful lady, • Examples: beauty, brilliance,

• Examples: man, planet, • Examples: teacher,

• Example: rich, educated, • Examples: poor, uneducated,

• The sum total of all individuals or objects to

• A term that is used • A term that is used • A term that

1. The poor are hungry.

Boys are humans. PROPOSITIONS/ Products of

Boys and girls are humans. Argument

q One of the reasons to study logic and critical thinking is to learn

asserts supports the assertion

q A proposition is a complete thought, normally expressed in a

1. The Philippines rarely gets typhoons.

q Propositions follow the standard components of a complete

q Propositions can be simple (one proposition) or compound (two

q In the English language, sentences can be declarative,

1. My dinner this evening is pizza.

q There are three principles used in analyzing truth values:

Apples grow from apple trees.

q There are three principles used in analyzing truth values:

q There are three principles used in analyzing truth values:

q There are three principles used in analyzing truth values:

3. Principle of Excluded Middle

q An argument refers strictly to any group of propositions of which

I need a larger pair of shoes because my feet hurt.

My feet hurt, therefore, I need a larger pair of shoes.

• A proposition which gives reasons, grounds,

• A proposition, which is purported to be

q In general, a passage contains an argument if it purports to prove or justify

Factual Claim Inferential Claim

Explicit Inferential Claims Implicit Inferential Claims

Premise Indicators Conclusion Indicators

q Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:

1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

q Some general rules to follow when trying to recognize arguments:

1. Distinguish whether a passage contains an argument.

q Diagrams are useful for analyzing an argument.

Basic symbols used:

If gun ownership leads to Politics depends on morality.

1. People have a right to life.

1. In analyzing the structure of an argument, whether simple or