For Private Use (Jefferson S.

Backong)

INTRODUCTION

PHILOSOPHY AND ITS NATURE

Definition of Philosophy

The term philosophy can be viewed in two ways; from its etymological definition
and from its real definition.

Etymologically, the word philosophy was derived from two Greek words Philo (to
love) and Sophia (wisdom). The word philosophy therefore means the love of wisdom, and
thus connotes that a philosopher is a lover of wisdom.

Its real definition, philosophy is defined as a search for meaning.

The term search used on the abovementioned definition must not be understood in its
ordinary sense; rather it must have to be viewed in a philosophical way, connoting
something that is more serious, something that is more intense, something that can be
considered as more than a quest. According to Corazon L. Cruz in her book entitled
Philosophy of Man, understanding the word search philosophically, first and foremost the
object (thing) of the search should be of real value to the subject (person philosophizing).
Secondly, it “consumes” the whole person-his attention, concentration, interest and effort.
And lastly, the search is continued without let-up until the answer is found, or the answer
is not yet found, but the conviction is reached that for the moment at least this is the best
possible although still imperfect answer.

Branches of Philosophy

Philosophy as being considered as a tree of knowledge is being subdivided into

various areas of integral systematic investigation about reality. As a love of wisdom, it is a
creative activity of raising fundamental questions about life. It challenges the human
person to face whatever risk in his quest for truth. For philosophy indeed is directed
towards the truth, making us strive to live in accordance to what is true.

The branches of philosophy are summarized as follows:

1. Logic: the science and art of correct thinking/reasoning

2. Ethics: the science of the morality of human acts
3. Epistemology: the study of the nature of knowledge
4. Metaphysics: the inquiry into Being in general
5. Cosmology: the study of inanimate things such as the universe from the philosophical
viewpoint
6. Aesthetics: the appreciation of the beautiful
7. Rational or Philosophical Psychology: the study of the life principle of living things,
specifically that of man
8. Theodicy: the discourse of God within the bounds of reason alone
9. Philosophy of the human person: the study of the dimensions of being human
10. Social Philosophy: the study of the aspects of social existence
11. Political Philosophy: the examination of the foundation of politics
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 2

WHAT IS LOGIC?

Definition of Logic

All schools of thought use reasoning skills and in identifying whether that
reasoning is correct or not, it will now depend if it is in accord with rules of logic.

But what is logic? Logic basically is defined as the science and art of correct
reasoning. The process of reasoning consists in identifying and establishing some
reasons as evidence/s (premis/es) for a particular conclusion which we draw, and if the
particular conclusion follows necessarily from the given premise/s, then there is no
reason for the argument not be valid. This is to say that an argument is only valid if and
only if the conclusion follows necessarily from the given premis/es and an argument is
invalid if it does not follow necessarily from the given premis/es. What we have just said
indicates that our conclusion in order have a real value must have to be drawn from
sound evidence/s. It is only in this case that our conclusion is considered as reasonable.

Logic as a Science

Science refers to a systematic body of knowledge. It is called systematic because it

employs steps and procedures in the study of the subject. We can then infer from this
that logic itself is a science since it is a systematized body of logical truths and principles
governing correct thinking. It has been so since the time of Aristotle.

Logic as an Art

Art is normally defined as “making a work of beauty, which is anything that

awakens the feeling of delight. It includes visual arts, dance, literary and music. As art,
each has only
one purpose: the expression of the beautiful. To accomplish this, the artist cannot
wallow in inaction. The person must keep on practicing his/her art: most of the time in
painful, restless pursuit, the only way for an artist to find expression of the things
occurring within or outside himself and herself.
Logic is somewhat a different matter. The objective is still the expression of beautiful,
but in a limited sense only – that in which reasoning is done beautifully: with ease, with
correctness, with validity.

As an art, logic enables us how to make good argument. Logic is often called the
art of arts because it develops and perfects the intellect which all artists need in their work.

The Origins of Logic

Parmenides (-510 BC) was the inventor of logic. He invented logic applying the
mathematical methods of proof to a philosophical problem regarding the nature of
“being” and “not-being”.
Aristotle is considered as the father of logic because he was the first one to grasp
the full value and importance of Logic. He pioneered in systematizing and generalizing
the rules of logic, and the first to study and analyze the methods of logic. He was also
the first to realize that the rules of logic are independent of the subject matter and
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 3

content of the statements used in logic. By this we mean that Aristotle was the first to
realize that the study of logic exhibits the patterns of inference (drawing conclusion),
and that those patterns of inferences are valid regardless of what subject matter the
patterns of inference are applied to. For example, a rule of logic may be expressed in
syllogistic form:

All KSUians are hardworking students.

Leslyn is a KSUian.
Therefore, Leslyn is a hardworking student.

According to Aristotle, we can be able to draw a conclusion from any two premises
which have a relationship to each other, when the premises are stated in this form. This
form of syllogism results in a conclusion which is true regardless of the content of the
premises and the conclusion provided that the form is followed exactly.

This kind of reasoning, “formal reasoning”, the goal of the reasoning is to discover
something that we do not know (conclusion) from what we already know (premises).
From the above example, the latter statement (proposition) is considered the conclusion
and the former statements are the premises. It is where what we already know is stated.
This will make us realize that formal reasoning allows us to grow in knowledge and this
is only possible if we already have some knowledge.

Kinds of Logic

Formal Logic is concerned with the aspect of form which has to do with
correctness or sequence or to the following of rules. Let’s take the examples below:

eg. 1 eg. 2

All men are mortal. All men are mortal.

Pedro is a man. Pedro is a man.
Therefore, Pedro is mortal. Therefore, Pablo is mortal.

We have a categorical syllogism which follows its rules and has a sequence. (This
will be discussed later.

Material Logic is concerned with the aspect of subject matter or content or truth.

In the second example above, we can say that the conclusion follows necessarily
from the given premises if and only if all the statements are true, considering that Pablo is
a name of a man and not of a dog. This is what material Logic is all about: that the content
is true.
However, in this course we are going to focus in the study of the following rules and
sequence of formal logic.

Deductive and Inductive Logic

These two deals with the process of thinking and that entail premises and
conclusion.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 4

Deductive Logic is that kind in which the premises flow logically into the
conclusion. That is why it is also called Formal Deductive Logic. It is from universal to
particular or as McCall says from “the more to the less universal by way of a middle
term.”

eg.

All criminology students are diligent individuals.

Jacob Isaac is a criminology student.
Therefore, Jacob Isaac is a diligent individual.

Inductive Logic arrives at the conclusion, but with less certainty than Deductive
Logic. It only implies a sense of probability. As Copi says, it “may provide some evidence
of the truth. This kind of reasoning is closely allied to the scientific method, being from
the particular to the universal. (CRUZ, 1995)

eg.

Some criminology students are diligent individuals.

Jacob Isaac is a criminology student.
Therefore, Jacob Isaac is a diligent individual.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 5

TERMINOLOGY OF LOGIC

Each proposition is composed of three terms known as a subject term, a predicate

term and a copula. The subject term and predicate term are connected in a meaningful way
by a copula.

The Quantity of Terms

A singular term is used to refer to an individual only, either directly or indirectly.

A direct way of referring to an individual is to use a proper name: Dr. Ignacio, Tabuk City,
Farm, etc... An indirect way of referring to an individual is to use a demonstrative pronoun
or a description: that mahogany tree, this small chalk, the most corrupt president. Some
words which signify the use of singular terms are: proper nouns, demonstrative pronouns,
personal pronouns and the article “the” when it is used to refer to a definite person, place
or thing.

A collective term is used to refer to a concept which represents a class of things,

but the term does not apply to the individuals in that class but refers to the entire class as a
whole. Some examples are: family, orchestra, herd, and team.

A universal term is used to express a universal concept. It can be applied to

individuals within class, and to the class itself. Some words that signify the use of
universal terms are: the universal quantifiers all, every, each, none, no one, etc.

A particular term is used to refer to an indefinite part of a universal concept.

Some words that signify the use of particular terms are: adjectives, numbers, indefinite
pronouns,. Some examples are: some CCJE students, two eggs, several politicians, few
Kalingas.

The Quality of Terms

The copula term can be used either affirmatively or negatively. That is, we use the
copula to affirm or deny something, to affirm or deny the relationship between the subject
and the predicate.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 6

THE PROPOSITION

A proposition is a statement that can either be true or false. While it is true that all
propositions are statements, not all statements are propositions for not all statements can
be either true or false. In the field of logic, only declarative sentences can be used as
propositions because only declarative sentences are the only sentences that can be either
true or false. The other kinds of sentences, interrogative, imperative and exclamatory can’t
be considered as propositions.

The Quality of Propositions

The quality of a proposition is the same as the quality of the copula term. This is to
say that propositions can be either affirmative or negative. In a proposition, the predicate
is either affirmed or denied of the subject. In the following cases, the copula affirms the
predicate of the subject:
- Mangoes are fruits.
- Lawyers are liars.
- Some teachers are meticulous.
- Dogs are animals.
Thus, such propositions are affirmative.
In the following cases:
- Mangoes are not vegetables.
- Lawyers are not liars.
- Some teachers are not meticulous.
- Dogs are not cats.

the copula denies that the predicate belongs to the subject. Therefore, these propositions
are negative.

The Quantity of Propositions

From the standpoint of quantity, a proposition is understood in the same way that
the subject is understood or used: universal, particular, singular, or collective.

UNIVERSAL PROPOSITION. A proposition is universal if the subject is a universal

term, and if it is applied to each member of the class in a distributive way. Quantifiers all,
every, each usually indicate the universality of a proposition.
A universal negative proposition may be expressed by placing “no” in relation to
the subject.

PARTICULAR PROPOSITION. A proposition is particular when the subject is used

indeterminately. It is usually indicated by the use of the words ‘some’ or not all attached to
the subject.

SINGULAR PROPOSITION. A proposition is singular when the subject is applied to a

single individual only: “That man is very vicious,” “This mango is sweet,” Jose Rizal is a
hero” are examples of singular propositions. In logic, singular propositions are treated
as universal propositions. The subject is understood according to the whole of its
extension which is this case is one being.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 7

COLLECTIVE PROPOSITION. A proposition is collective when the subject is a

collective term. That is, the term applies to all members of the class taken together, but it
does not apply to the individual members. Some examples of collective propositions are:
“The history class went on an outing,” “The KSU varsity team won the game,” “The
Americans lost the War.”

Likwise with singular propositions, collective propositions are treated in logic as

universal propositions.

Because singular and collective propositions are treated as universal propositions,

we can say that all propositions have the quantity value of either universal or particular
propositions.

The Four Standard Propositions

There are four standard forms of propositions. These four forms express the quality
and the quantity of propositions. The four forms are: universal affirmative, universal
negative, particular affirmative and particular negative. Traditionally, logicians have used
a single vowel to represent each of these propositions. ‘A’ represents the affirmative
proposition, ‘E’ represents the universal negative, ‘I’ represents the particular negative and
‘O’ represents the particular negative.

If we are going to use ‘S’ to represent the subject, and the letter ‘P’ to represent the
predicate, then we can create the following scheme.

A Universal Affirmative All S is P. (All birds are flying animals.)

E Universal Negative No S is P. (No bird is a flying animal.)
I Particular Affirmative Some S is P. (Some birds are flying animals.)
O Particular Negative Some S is P. (Some birds are not flying animals.)

When we use the phrase “four standard forms of propositions” we are making a
very definite statement about formal logic. We are saying that, in order to be able to use
propositions well in the process of reasoning, the propositions must be of one of the four
fixed and definite forms above. This is to say that it is necessary to rewrite a proposition
into its standard form so that it may be used properly in a syllogism.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 8

CONVERTING ORDINARY SENTENCES INTO STANDARD CATEGORICAL

PROPOSITIONS

In our ordinary discourses, it rarely happens that a proposition is presented in the

standard, logical form. To be able to correctly apply the rules of logic to the lines of
reasoning we usually encounter in ordinary sentences, we should be able to translate
ordinary English sentences into the standard forms for propositions used in logic. We must
then know the rules which help us in the process of converting ordinary sentences into the
standard forms of propositions as needed in logic.

Rules in Converting Ordinary Sentences into Standard Categorical Propositions

Rule 1: Translate general statements as universal propositions unless the proposition

points to a “particular” usage.

Rule 2: Add the missing complement to an adjective or a describing phrase to show that
they refer to classes.

In logic, we are primarily dealing with the relationships between classes of beings.
In order to make the meaning clear it, a noun shall be added to the adjective or adverb.
This noun is called a complement. Let us take the example, “Some dogs are vicious”. In
this sentence, “vicious” is not a noun, hence, we need to rewrite the sentence as, “Some
dogs are vicious animals”. Likewise, we know what is meant by the statement “All
foolish are losers in the end”, but this sentence is not in its standard form. There is no noun
in the subject. Thus, in order to make this sentence become a standard proposition in form,
the sentence must be rewritten as “All foolish persons are losers in the end”.
The copula must be placed if it is missing. An example of such case is the sentence
“Dogs bark”. If we are going to rewrite it into its standard form, it will become, “All dogs
are barking animals”. Similarly, when it is said that “Some Filipinos believe in spirits”, it
must be rewritten as “Some Filipinos are people who believe in spirits.”

Rule 3: Singular statements should be treated as universal statements.

Rule 4: Quantifiers that refer to a universal should be replaced by “all” or “no” and
“some” when it refers to particular.

Let us take note that the article “a” or “an” is usually construed as universal,
subject to certain contextual exemptions.

Rule 5. Exclusive sentences should be translated into universal statements by reversing

the order of the original statement.

Exclusive sentences are sentences in which a class is excluded from the

relationship which is presented. It usually begin with words such as, “only”, or “none but”.
The rule in translating exclusive sentences into standard form propositions has two parts.
First, omit the exclusive word/s and replace it with “All”. Second, reverse the subject
and the predicate.
Let us look on the following examples:

eg. 1
Only men are priests.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 9

eg. 2
None but Asians need to apply.

Applying the rule in rewriting exclusive sentences, the following propositions will
be rewritten as “All priests are men”, and “All those who need to apply are Asians”.

Rule 6: Exceptive statements may be translated into an A or E statement.

For example, if it is said that “Everyone except BSCRIM 1B students may attend
the symposium”, what is meant can be expressed in two ways. It can be expressed as “All
who are not BSCRIM 1B student may attend the symposium” (A), or “No BSCRIM 1B
student may attend the symposium” (E). According to the rule, the “A” or the “E”
proposition may be used.

Negative sentences have two forms. There are those beginning with negative
words such as “nothing”, “none”, and “no one”, and those where the negative term is
placed next to the copula.

Rule 7: “Not all” should be translated as an “O” statement.

Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 10

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TERMS IN A PROPOSITION

It is important for us to know how the terms in the four standard propositions are
distributed. The notion of ‘distribution is simple to understand. We can say that a term is
‘distributed’ when the term applies to all the members of the class denoted by the term.
For example, if we say, “All Kalingas are Filipino,” the term ‘Kalingas’ is distributed
because we are referring to ALL Kalingas. However, if we say, “Some Kalingas are
Filipino,” the term ‘Kalingas’ in this proposition is not distributed because we are
referring to an indefinite number of members of the class denoted by the term. We can
then infer from this that terms in a proposition is either distributed or undistributed.

The Distribution of Terms in the Four Standard Categorical Propositions

The Distribution of Terms in “A” Proposition

In the universal affirmative proposition, the subject term is distributed because it is

used universally. That is, it is used to refer to every member of its class. Let us take this
example:
All Kalingas are Filipino.
S P

It is obvious that the subject term (Kalingas) of this proposition is distributed

because it applies to every member of its class and as it is indicated by the quantifier ALL.
On the other hand, the predicate term (Filipino) is undistributed because we are not
referring to all Filipinos. We are saying in the proposition that all members of the class
Kalingas fit within the class Filipinos.

The Distribution of Terms in “E” Proposition

The subject term and the predicate term in a universal negative proposition are
both distributed. In the proposition:

No Kalinga is a Filipino.
S P

we are saying that the subject term (Kalingas) and the predicate term (Filipino) are two
independent classes, meaning, there is no member of the class Kalinga existing within the
class Filipino.

The Distribution of Terms in “I” Proposition

An example of a particular affirmative proposition is:

Some Kalingas are Filipino.

S P

We can easily see in this proposition that the subject term (Kalingas) is not
distributed because we are not referring to the entire class of Kalingas as indicated by the
quantifier some. Similarly, the predicate term (Filipino) is undistributed because we are
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 11

not referring to all Filipino. What we assert in this proposition is that some members of the
class Kalinga that exist within the class Filipino. In the particular affirmative proposition,
in all cases, both the subject term and the predicate term are undistributed.

The Distribution of Terms in “O” Proposition

An example of a particular affirmative proposition is:

Some Kalingas are not Filipino.

S P

It is clear in this proposition that the subject term (Kalingas) does not refer to all its
members. We are saying in this proposition that some members of the class Kalingas are
excluded in the class of the predicate term (Filipino). Hence, the predicate term is
distributed.

We can summarize the distribution of terms in the four standard categorical

propositions in the following scheme:

TYPE OF PROPOSITION SUBJECT PREDICATE

A D U
E D D
I U U
O U D

Let us take note that the distribution of terms in the four standard categorical
propositions is fixed and cannot be altered.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 12

THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

The universal affirmative proposition, “All humans are biped,” when we rewrite
into the other three standard forms, we have: “No humans are biped”, “Some humans are
biped”, and “Some humans are not biped”. In these four standard propositions, truth and
falsity are closely linked because the propositions are obviously opposed to each other
somehow. By investigating the logical opposition between these standard propositions, we
will be able to determine their truth and falsity. (SLU Logic Manual, 2004) This is to say
that, from the truth
value of one proposition, we will be able know the truth value of its other three standard
forms.

We have just learned that there are four standard categorical propositions known as
the universal affirmative proposition (A), the universal negative proposition (E), the
particular affirmative proposition (I) and the particular negative proposition (O). Below is
the diagram of the four types of opposition, and the four relations that result from their
opposition which is called traditionally in logic as the “Square of Opposition”.

THE SQUARE OF OPPOSITION

A Contraries E
(All S is P.) (No S is P.)
C
o
n S S
t u u
r b b
a a a
d l l
i t t
c e e
t r r
o n n
r s s
i
e
s

I Sub contraries O
(Some S is P.) (Some S is not P.)
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 13

Rules of Logical Oppositions

The relation of SUBALTERNATION – is the opposition that exists between

the two affirmative propositions, and between the two negative propositions. In other
words, we are referring to the opposition that exists between the universal affirmative
proposition and particular affirmative proposition as well as the opposition that exists
between the universal negative proposition and particular negative proposition.

Laws of Subalternation

1. The truth of the universal involves the truth of the particular, and the truth of the
particular does not involve the truth of the universal. Thus, we could say that if A
is true, then I must also be true, and if E is true, the O must also be true.
Conversely, if I is true, then A may be either true or false, and if O is true, then E
may or may not be true.
2. The falsity of the particular implies the falsity of the universal, and the falsity of
the universal does not involve the falsity of the particular. If I is false, then A must
be false, and if O is false, then E is also false. Conversely, if A is false, then I is
either true or false, and if E is false, then O may be true or false.

The relation of CONTRADICTION – is the opposition that exists between a

universal affirmative and a particular negative, as well as the opposition that exists
between a universal affirmative and a particular affirmative.

Laws of Contradiction

1. Contradictories cannot be true together. That is, if A is true, then O must be false,
and if O is true, then A must be false. If E is true, I must be false, and if I is true, E
must be false.
2. Contradictories cannot be false together. That is, if A is false, then O must be true
and if O is false, then A must be true. If E is false, then I must be true, and if I is
false, O must be true.

The relation of CONTRARIETY is the opposition that exists between two

universal propositions, affirmative and negative.

Laws of Contrariety

1. Contraries cannot be true together. That is, if A is true, then E must be false, and if
E is true, then A must be false. If one of the contraries is true, then the other
contrary is necessarily false.
2. Contraries may be false together. That is, if A is false, then E may be true or false
and if E is false, then A may be true or false.

The relation of SUB-CONTRARIETY – is the opposition that exists between

two particular propositions.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 14

Laws of Sub – contrariety

1. Both sub-contraries cannot be false together. If I is false, then O must be true, and
if O is false, I must be true.
2. Both sub-contraries may be true together. That is, if I is true, O may be true or
false, and if O is true, I may be true or false.

Summary of the Legitimate Conclusions we arrive at from the Four Types of

Opposition

If A is true, then I is true, E is false, and O is false.

If A is false, then O is true, E is undetermined, and I is undetermined.
If E is true, then O is true, A is false, and I is false.
If E is false, then I is true, A is undetermined, and O is undetermined.
If I is true, then E is false, A is undetermined, and O is undetermined.
If I is false, then O is true, A is false, and E is true.
If O is true, then A is false, E is undetermined, and I is undetermined
If O is false, then I is true, E is false, and A is true.

This method of concluding from the truth or falsity of one proposition to the
truth or falsity of another proposition, is called immediate inference. It is called
immediate, because we pass from knowledge of proposition to the knowledge of the other
propositions immediately, that we do not need to refer to any other concept or judgment as
proof. (SLU Logic Manual, 2004)
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 15

THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

Categorical Syllogism is the most famous type of deductive reasoning. It is defined as a

line of argument that contains two premises and a conclusion. It is composed of three
propositions. A proposition, as previously defined, is a statement that can either be true or
false. The proposition that a person is trying to establish or prove is called the conclusion
of the argument. The other two propositions are called premises. Premises are propositions
which provide the reasons for asserting that the conclusion is true. Consider the given
example of a syllogism.

A. All Kalingas are patriot.

B. All Ybalbalans are Kalinga.
C. Therefore, all Ybalbalans are patriot.

Propositions A and B are the premises of the syllogism, and proposition C is the
conclusion. The premises imply the conclusion, or that the conclusion is inferred from the
premises. Through the theory of syllogism, we will be able to acquire means for
distinguishing good reasoning from bad.

From the four standard forms of propositions, we could suppose that these four
allow us to create a rather large number of syllogisms. However, not all arrangement of
propositions will enable us to draw a valid conclusion. In other words, not every syllogism
is considered as a valid argument. Let us take this example:

All dogs are animals.

All cats are animals.
Therefore, all dogs are cats.

It is obvious that even the term “animal” is common to both “dogs” and “cats”, we
can not conclude an identity between “dogs” and “cats” because the comprehension of the
terms are different. These differences prevent us from saying that dogs are the same as
cats.

When do we say then that a syllogism is considered as a valid argument? Before

we are going to talk about the general rules to be used to determine the validity of
categorical syllogisms, it is just right that we must first know the terms of the categorical
syllogism.

Terms within the Syllogism

Every syllogism is composed of three propositions, wherein every proposition has

a subject term and a predicate term. Hence, a syllogism has six terms in all, three subject
terms and three predicate terms. But if we are going to examine intently a syllogism, we
will come to realize that a syllogism has three terms which each appears twice and only
twice. These three terms are to be identified as the major term, minor term and the middle
term. The “major term” refers to that term which appears in the predicate of the conclusion
and is found in the major premise. The “minor term” refers to the term which is the subject
of the conclusion and which also appears in the minor premise. The major term and the
minor term appear in only one of the premises; and each can appear in either premise. We
also call the premise which contains the major term as “the major premise” regardless
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 16

whether it is the first or the second premise in the syllogism and that premise which
contains the minor term is called the minor premise. Furthermore, the term which appears
in both premises but not in the conclusion is called the “middle term”. It is the middle that
establishes the relationship between the major term and minor term.

Example: All birds are flying animals.

Maya is a bird.
Therefore, Maya is a flying animal.
Maya – Minor Term
Flying animal – Major Term
Bird – Middle Term
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 17

GENERAL RULES FOR SYLLOGISMS

Not every arrangement of the four standard categorical propositions necessarily

allows us to draw a valid conclusion. Because of this, logicians have developed rules that
will help us determine the validity or invalidity of a syllogism.

The 6 general rules are:

Rule 1: There should be only three terms to be used twice with the same meaning
throughout.

In a syllogism, we try to discover whether two different terms agree with each
other. We do this by comparing each of the two terms with a common third term or known
as the middle term.

All rulers are twelve inches long.

BBM is a ruler.
Therefore, BBM is twelve inches long.

In the above example, the syllogism consists of four terms rather than three
because the term “ruler” is used with two different meanings. Violation of this rule will
result in the “Fallacy of Four terms”.

Rule 2: The middle term must be distributed at least once.

We must note that the middle term establishes the relationship between the two
premises. It is then important that the middle term must be distributed once in the
syllogism. Otherwise, the syllogism will violate the said rule that would result in “Fallacy
of Undistributed Middle Term” as exemplified by the examples below.

All KSUians are students.

All Louisians are students.
Therefore, all KSUians are Louisians.

All priests are men.

Dr. Garcia is a man.
Therefore, Dr. Garcia is a priest.

Rule 3: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in the premise.

If the predicate term in the conclusion is distributed, then it follows that the major
term must also be distributed in the premise. An example of a violation to this rule
follows.

Every KSUian is a student.

No UPian is a KSUian.
Therefore, No Upian is a student.

Here, the major term “student” is distributed in the conclusion because it is the
predicate of a negative proposition, while it is undistributed in the major premise because
it is the predicate of an affirmative proposition.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 18

This particular violation results in the “Fallacy of Illicit Major”.

Another possible violation to this rule is when the subject term of the conclusion is
distributed but it is not distributed in the minor premise.

No Negroes are white.

Some men are Negroes.
Therefore, No men are white.

Every circle is a sphere.

Every circle is a figure.
Therefore, every figure is a sphere.

Both syllogisms were against Rule 3, but their violation resulted in “Fallacy of
Illicit Minor”.

Rule 4: Two negative premises are not allowed.

If both premises are negative, we have denied that both the major and minor term
has a relation with each other through the middle term. If this is the case, we cannot
conclude anything about their relation to each other. An example of a violation is:

No instructors are temperamental.

No temperamental individuals are humorous.
Therefore, no instructors are humorous.

No millionaire is a peasant.
No peasant is a cultured man.
Therefore, No cultured man is a peasant.

Violation to this rule results in the “Fallacy of Exclusive Terms”.

Rule 5: If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, the conclusion must be
negative.

When one premise is affirmative and the other premise is negative, then one of the
terms (major or minor) agrees with the middle term and the other term disagrees with the
middle term. That implies that the major and minor terms disagree with each other. The
conclusion must state that disagreement and therefore must negative. An example of a
violation of this rule follows.

Angels are spirits.

Monuments of stone are not angels.
Therefore, monuments of stone are not spirits.

No good fighting cocks are good tasting food.

Texas rooster is a good tasting food.
Therefore, the texas rooster is a good fighting cock.

Violation of this rule results in the fallacy of “Drawing an affirmative conclusion

from a negative premise”.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 19

Rule 6: A particular conclusion cannot have two universal premises.

This rule is known as the rule on the existential import of the proposition.
Violation of such rule results in “Existential Fallacy”.

All birds are flying animals.

All flying animals have feathers.
Therefore, some animals with feathers are birds.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 20

SYLLOGISTIC FORMS

The logical form of the categorical syllogism revolves around its terms and
propositions, specifically its figures – arrangement of terms, and moods – or arrangement
of propositions according to quality and quantity.

Figures

There are only four possible arrangements of the terms in the premises. These four
arrangements are called the four syllogistic figures. To diagram these four figures, we will
use symbols for each term. We will use “S” to refer to the subject of the conclusion, “P” to
refer to the predicate of the conclusion and “M” to refer to the middle term.

Figure 1

M P The middle term is the subject of the major premise and the
S M predicate of the minor premise.
____________

S P

Example 1: All government employees are dedicated individuals.

All police officers are government employees.
Therefore, all police officers are dedicated individuals.

Figure 2

P M The middle term is the predicate of both premises.

S M
____________

S P

Example 2: No corrupt politicians are generous.

Some retired police officers are generous.
Therefore, some retired police officers are not corrupt politicians.

Figure 3

M P The middle term is the subject of both premises.

M S
____________

S P

Example 3: All women are dignified.

Some women are victims of discrimination.
Therefore, some victims of discrimination are dignified.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 21

Figure 4

P M The middle term is the predicate of the major premise and

M S the subject of the minor premise.
____________

S P

Example 4: Some criminology students are KSUians.

All KSUians are responsible citizens.
Therefore, some responsible citizens are criminology students.

By convention, these configurations of the syllogistic terms are fixed.

Mood

Mood refers to the types of propositions that comprise the syllogism. We must then
analyze our syllogisms to identify which of the different types of propositions were
actually used in the syllogism. If we are going to identify the mood of the syllogism in the
above examples, we can say that example no. 1 has an AA:.A mood; example no. 2 has an
EI:.O mood; example no. 3 has an AI:.I mood; and example no. 4 has an IA:.I mood.

By combining the mood and figure of syllogism, we will arrive at what we call the
form of syllogism. Hence, if we look at the form of the first example, it will have an
AAA1form; the second, EIO2; third, AII3; and the last IAI4.

With the four figures and four types of propositions, it is possible to construct
different forms of categorical syllogisms. Definitely, not all of them are valid.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 22

THE VENN DIAGRAM

Attempts were made by modern logicians to interpret the Aristotelian statements:

A, E, I, O. One such logician was the 19th century logician George Boole, who introduced
a certain interpretation of the Aristotelian statements.

According to Boole, the four standard propositions have the following meaning:

(A) All S is P. = No member of S is outside P.

(E) No S is P. = No member of S is inside P.
(I) Some S is P. = At least there is one S that exist, and that S is P.
(O) Some S is not P. = At least there is one S that exist, and that S is not P.

Boole came out with “equations” to illustrate his interpretations. Thus:

All S is P means S (-P) = 0

No S is P means SP = 0
Some S is P means SP ≠ 0
Some S is not P means S (-P) ≠ 0

John Venn, another 19th century logician, following the Boolean interpretations
of Aristotelian statements, developed a system of diagrams to represent the categorical
statements. These are now known as “Venn Diagrams”.

A Venn Diagram of a categorical statement is an arrangement of two overlapping

circles. Each circle represents a class, the class of the subject (S) and the class of the
predicate (P). These two overlapping circles can be drawn as shown below:

S P

The members of the class denoted by the subject term are conceived as located in
the circle S, and the members of the class denoted by the predicate term are conceived as
located in the circle P.
If we are going to assume that in the diagram below the subject term is
“criminology students” and the predicate term is “KSUians”, then the area marked with S
(-P) is understood as the area of criminology students who are not KSUians, SP is the area
of criminology students who are KSUians, P (-S) is the area of KSUians who are not
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 23

criminology students and (-S) (-P) is the area of those who are not criminology students
and not KSUians.

S (-P) SP P (-S) (-S) (-P)

The Venn Diagrams project a standard-form proposition only when a circle is

partly shaded out or contains an “X”. The next four diagrams are of the four categorical
propositions. Take note that when the area is shaded, it means the area is null or empty.

A: All S is P.

S P
The diagram shows that since all S is P, that part of S that is not P is shaded, for it is
empty.

E: No S is P.

S P
The diagram shows that since no S is P, that part of S that is P is shaded, for it is nothing.

I: Some S is P.

S P
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 24

The “X” in the area of SP reveals that there is at least one S that exists, and that S is P.

O: Some S is not P.

S P
The “X” in the area of S that is not P reveals that there is at least one S that exist, and
that S is not P.

The Venn Diagrams are very helpful in determining the validity of syllogisms. But
since a syllogism contains three terms and only three terms, we need to add another circle
to represent the middle term. Thus, three overlapping circles shall be drawn to represent
the three terms of the syllogism. The circle at the left side represents the class of the minor
term, the circle at the right side represents the class of the major term, and the circle below
represents the class of the middle term.

S S (-P) (-M) SP (-M) (-S) (-M) P P

SPM

SM (-P) (-S) MP

M (-S) (-P)

The following guidelines must be observed in connection with the Venn Diagram test.

1. The universal premise should be diagramed first if the syllogism contains a

particular premise.
2. The letter X should be placed in the line dissecting an area if the whole area is
designated in the premise. If part of the area is shaded, the X must be placed in
the unshaded part.
3. Only the premises should be diagramed. If a syllogism is valid, the conclusion
will be self-evident.

We shall now test some syllogisms in view of their validity or invalidity by way of
Venn Diagrams:
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 25

Example 1: All KSUians are students.

No illiterate persons are students.
Therefore, no illiterate persons are KSUians.

First Step: Three intersecting circles are drawn, labeling each circle with the minor term,
major term and middle term.

Illiterate Persons KSUians

Students

Second Step: Diagram the major premise. (In cases where the syllogism is composed of a
universal premise and a particular premise, diagram first the universal premise.)

Major Premise: All KSUians are students.

Illiterate Persons KSUians

Students

Third Step: The minor premise shall be likewise diagramed.

Minor Premise: No illiterate persons are students.

Illiterate Persons KSUians

Students
VALID
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 26

The conclusion should not be diagramed. In fact it is already self-evident after we

diagramed the premises. The diagram shows that the area of illiterate persons who are
KSUians is empty. Hence, the argument is VALID.
Example 2: All lawyers are liars.
Some liars are students.
Therefore, some students are lawyers.
First Step:

Students Lawyers

Liars

Second Step:

Students Lawyers

Liars

Third Step:

Students Lawyers
X

Liars

INVALID
The conclusion is not self-evident in the diagram because two possible conclusions
can be read. The first will be “Some students are lawyers”; and the second is “Some
students are not lawyers”. Thus, the syllogism is invalid.

Example 3: All women are human.

Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 27

All men are human.

Therefore, all women are men.

Women Men

Human
INVALID
Example 4: No KSUians are UPians.
No UPians are Louisians.
Therefore, no KSUians are Louisians.

KSUians Louisians

UPians
INVALID
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 28

FALACIES IN THE MATTER

The term “fallacy” was derived from the Latin word fallo which means “I
deceived”. That is why it has come to mean a deceptive argument that is, an argument that
seems to be correct but it is actually incorrect. The object of our study now is all about the
different fallacies based on a confusion of ideas or things. We are no longer going to
mention the following formal fallacies because it was already being alluded in our
previous discussions.

FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE:

These refer to arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the
conclusion. To premises, however, are relevant psychologically so the conclusion may
seem to follow from the premises.

Argumentum ad hominem (Argument against the person) – In refuting a person’s position,

the argument is directed against the person rather than against what the
person said. In other words, the attack is leveled against the person, not
against his/her argument. This is understood in ordinary terms as attacking
the person below the belt.

Examples: You say I’m not handsome? Look who’s talking.

You don’t have any right to question me as your instructor! Wait until you
become such!
I will not vote for that student as a student officer because he has a face that
only a mother could love.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity) – A fallacy consisting of appealing to

feelings or emotions in order to have a conclusion accepted.

Example: Sir, please don’t fail me. We are very poor and my parents don’t have
enough money to support me for my studies. So I deserve to pass your
course.

Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to People) – This happens when no solid reasons for a
position is presented for or against a position, but rather an appeal is made
to the masses. The appeal is made by either appealing to the passions and
prejudices of the people, or by appealing to the presumed knowledge of the
people.

Example: All Kalingas to arms! A fellow Kalinga was killed by an Ilocano!

Argumentum ad Veracundiam (Appeal to Wrong Authority) – This fallacy is normally

committed when notable individuals are used as reference in justifying
matters which are outside their expertise.

Example: - There will be no classes for the whole week according to the officer at the
Commission on Elections.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 29

Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force) – This fallacy is committed when one seeks to
establish a conclusion by resorting to “force” or “intimidation”. Might is
right.

Example: Agree with me else I shall fail you in this subject.

Addendum: Non Sequitur – It refers to an argument whose conclusion does not follow
logically from the premises as when two ideas are disconnected.

Example: -The sky is blue. Therefore, it will rain tonight.

FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

Fallacy of Accident – is a fallacy based on confusion between the accidental qualities of a

thing and its essential attributes.

Example: All men are equal.

Pedro is more intelligent than Juan.
Therefore, not all men are equal.

Fallacy of the False Cause – is a fallacy committed when a cause is falsely assigned to a
particular effect.

Examples: - She is your mother because she was born ahead of you.
- I lied to you because the devil made me do it.
- He met an accident because he saw a black cat along the road yesterday.

Fallacy of Illicit Generalization - is the fallacy that draws a conclusion from insufficient
evidence.

Example: Some KSUians are studious.

Therefore, All KSUians are studious.

Fallacy of Neglected Aspect – This is committed when one presents evidence in support of
one conclusion while neglecting or ignoring that would support another.
Example: An appliance salesman might tell you that the brand of DVD player he is
selling costs less to purchase and operate, but fails to mention that it costs
more to maintain and repair than other brands.

Fallacy of the Consequent – This fallacy occurs when we infer the truth of the antecedent
from the truth of the consequent.

Example: If it has rained, then the provincial road is wet.

The provincial road is wet.
Therefore, it has rained.
Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 30

Argument from Silence – is the fallacy which considers that because nobody speaks about
something or because a fact is not in books or in newspapers, it
did not happen.

Example: Paul did never journey to the Asia Minor because it was not written on the
Bible.

MISCELLANEOUS FALLACIES

Assumptio non probata – This occurs when one assumes as already proven true what has
yet to be proven.

Example: All men are polygamous. (to be proven true) Therefore, your father is
polygamous.

Circular Reasoning (Circulus in probando) – One argues by using the premise to prove the
conclusion and then uses the same conclusion to prove the premise.

Example: Why are you here?

Because I am not there.

Both premises and Conclusion argument – This is the fallacy of using the conclusion as a
premise and using it to prove the same conclusion.

Examples: - War is an uncivilized practice because it is barbaric.

- She is gorgeous because she is beautiful.

Complex Question – This is asking a question that presupposes an answer to another

question that has not been asked and answered.

Example: Have you stopped cheating?

Self-contradiction – Presenting an argument containing contradictory or inconsistent

premises.

Example: He found a solution to an insoluble problem.

Ad Privatum (Jefferson S. Backong) 31

REFERENCES:

Adversalo, Oscar R. Symbolic Logic (A Manual in Philosophy 1). 1994 Saint Louis
University (for Private USE)

Andrales, Venancio B. Introductory Text to Philosophy (Cubao, Quezon City: Greatbooks

Trading, Inc., 1987)

Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic: Third Edition (New York, Barnes and Noble, Inc.,
1968)

Cruz, Corazon L. Introduction to Logic: Fourth Edition (Mandaluyong City, National

Book Store, 1995)

Cruz, Corazon L. Philosophy of Man: Third Edition (Mandaluyong City, National Book
Store, 1995)

Hecker Anthony and Caimol, Rhoneil (Logic Manual). 2004 Saint Louis University

http://www.logicville.com.html

Montemayor, Felix M. Introduction to Philosophy, Through the Philosophy of Man:

Revised Edition (Mandaluyong City: National Book Store, 1995)

Ramos, Christine Carmela R. Introduction to Philosophy (Manila, Philippines: Rex Book

Store, 2004)