Chapter 5

Logic

Prepared by:
Ruzanna Abdul Shukor
Learning Objectives
Students will be able to:
• explain the definition of logic, its importance and its concepts
• discuss the forms of argument; deductive and inductive
• describe fallacies and its category
 Introduction
• Logic is often informally described as the study of sound reasoning. As
such, it plays a crucial role in several areas of mathematics (especially
foundations) and of computer science (especially formal methods), as
well as in other fields, such as analytic philosophy and formal
linguistics.
• In an enormous development beginning in the late ninetieth century,
it has been found that a wide variety of different principles are
needed for sound reasoning in different domains, and “a logic” has
come to mean a set of principles for some form of sound reasoning.
Definition
• The term ‘logic’ comes from the Greek word
‘logos’ which can be translated into reason,
word, study or rationale.
• But in the philosophic sense, the term ‘logic’
denotes rationale, justification or reason.

This images is in the public domain.

• According to Copi (1953), cited in Mahadi,
Norliah, Ahmad & Shahrulanuar (2021), “logic is
the study of the methods and principles used to Irving Marmer Copi
1917-2002
distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) an American philosopher,
reasoning”. logician,
and university textbook
author.
• According to Bradley and Swartz (1988), the three fundamental
laws of logic (traditionally called as Laws of Thought by Aristotle)
are named respectively:
(1) The Law of Identity - if a statement is true, the it is true.
(2) The Law of Excluded Middle - a statement is either true or
false.
(3) The Law of Contradiction - no statement can both true or
false.
 The History of Logic
• The person who is generally credited Heraclitus of Ephesus
(535-475 BC)
as the father of logic is the ancient
Greek philosopher, Aristotle.
• Even though some pre-Socratic
philosophers such as Heraclitus and
These images are in the public domain.

Pythagoras of Samos
Pythagoras introduced the term logic (570-495 BC)
(Mahadi, Norliah, Ahmad &
Shahrulanuar, 2021), it was Aristotle
who first devised systematic criteria
for analyzing and evaluating
arguments. Aristotle
(384–322 BC)
 • After Aristotle’s death, another Greek
philosopher, Chrysippus, one of the
Chrysippus of Soli
founders of the Stoic school, developed
(280–206BC) a logic in which the fundamental
elements were whole propositions.
• The first major logician of the Middle
Ages was Peter Abelard. He

These images are in the public domain.

reconstructed and refined the logic of
Aristotle and Chrysippus.
Peter Abelard • His corpus includes concepts in the
(1079–1142)
A French mind and arguments (Hurley &
scholastic Watson, 2018).
philosopher
• During the Islamic Golden Age (8th-14th
century), the term ‘logic’ (Mantiq) revived Al-Farabi (872-951)
by Al-Farabi, known in the West as A renowned early Islamic
philosopher and jurist
‘Alpharabius’, in the tenth century. who wrote in the fields of
• Then, the works of Ibnu Sina (Avicenna) political philosophy,
and other Persian Muslim logicians who metaphysics,
ethics and logic.
often criticized and corrected Aristotelian
logic and introduced their own forms of

These images are in the public domain.

logic, also played a central role in the
subsequent development of European logic Ibnu Sina (980-1037)
during the Renaissance. His corpus includes
• Avicenna’s works contribute to the writings on astronomy,
alchemy, geography
development of modern logic. and geology,
• Avicenna’s system of logic was responsible psychology,
Islamic theology, logic,
for the introduction of logic studies such as mathematics, physics
inductive logic as an alternative to and works of poetry.
Aristotelian logic (Strobino, 2018).
 • The term ‘logic’ remained dominant from
Gottfried Wilhelm
the Christian Europe in the twelfth century.
Leibniz (1646–1716) • A reawakening did not occur until few
a German polymath
active
hundred years later through the work of
as a mathematician, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
philosopher, scientist,
and diplomat.
• Leibniz, a genius in numerous fields,
attempted to develop a symbolic language
or “calculus” that could be used to settle

These images are in the public domain.

Bernard Bolzano all forms of disputes, whether in theology,
(1781–1848) philosophy or international relations.
A Bohemian
mathematician, • As a result of this work, Leibniz is
logician, sometimes credited with being the father
philosopher, of symbolic logic. Leibniz’s efforts to
theologian and
Catholic priest symbolize logic were carried into the
of Italian extraction, nineteenth century by Bernard Bolzano
also known for (Hurley & Watson, 2018).
his liberal views.
 • The most influential philosophers in the
United Kingdom are George Campbell
and John Stuart Mill.
George Campbell
• Campbell was primarily interested in (1719-1796)
rhetoric, since he believed that its study the Scottish
Enlightenment
would enable his students to become
better preachers (Manolescu, 2007).
These images are in the public domain.

• In this work (A System of Logic), Mill

formulated the principles of inductive
reasoning that are known as Mill’s
Methods. This work is important in the John Stuart Mill
philosophy of science, and insofar, it (1806-1873)
an English philosopher,
outlines the empirical principles Mill political economist,
would use to justify his moral and Member of Parliament and
political philosophies (Macleod, 2016). civil servant.
Basic Concepts of Logic
• Logic begins with the study of language. Logic does not describe real
reasoning with its errors, omissions, and oversights, however it
prescribes methods for justifying reasoning which is to show that a
given bit of reasoning is proper.
• Logic thus describes an ideal that actual reasoning strives for but
sometimes fails to reach.
• Therefore, there are several fundamental concepts of logic which are
a) inferences (Hardegree, 1999), b) arguments, c) sufficient and
necessary conditions, d) soundness (Perry, Bratman & Fischer, 2019),
and, e) truth and validity (Lee, 2017).
 Inferences
• Reasoning is a special mental activity called inferring, what can also
be called making (or performing) inferences. The following is a useful
and simple definition of the word ‘infer’ (Hardegree, 1999).
To infer is to draw conclusions from premises.

• Inferences are made on the basis of various sorts of things such as

data, facts, information, states of affairs, etc.
• We infer or make a conclusion based on observation, prior
knowledge and reasoning.
• In order to simplify the investigation of reasoning, logic treats all of
these things in terms of a single sort of thing – statements, as following
examples:
Statement(s) Inference
Julia’s toddler is in bed upstairs. She Julia can infer that her toddler fell out
hears a bang and crying. of bed.
Tan hears a smoke alarm. He smells Tan can infer that his neighbor burnt
burnt bacon. her breakfast.
Kamala hears her mailbox close and Kamala can infer that the postal carrier
her dog is barking. has delivered her mail.

• Logic correspondingly treats inferences in terms of collections of

statements, which are called arguments. The word ‘argument’ has a
number of meanings in ordinary English.
 Arguments
• The definition of ‘argument’ that is relevant to logic is given as follows.
An argument is a series of statements where the last statement supposedly
follows from or is supported by the first statements. The last statement is
called the conclusion, and the first statements are called the premises.
• Usually, the premises of an argument are intended to support (justify)
the conclusion of the argument.
• Every argument may be placed in either of two basic groups;
 those in which the premises really do support the conclusion (good
arguments)
 those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to (bad
arguments)
 • Here is an example of good and bad argument:
Good argument Bad argument The term
argument
All film stars are celebrities. Some film stars are Premise
Halle Berry is a film star. women. Premise
Therefore, Halle Berry is a Hugh Jackman is a film star. Conclusion
celebrity. Therefore, Hugh Jackman is
a woman.
These images are in the public domain.
• The term argument has a very specific meaning in logic. It does not mean,
for example, a mere verbal fight, as one might have with one’s parent,
spouse, or friend. Let’s examine the features of argument in greater detail.
• First of all, an argument is a group of statements/propositions. A
statement (a declarative sentence) is a sentence that is either true or
false.
• The term is a particular kind of sentence, one which affirms or denies a
predicate of a subject.
• The following sentences are statements:
 Chocolate truffles are loaded with calories.
 Melatonin helps relieve jet lag.
 Political candidates always tell the complete truth.
 No wives ever cheat on their husbands.
 Tiger Woods plays golf and Maria Sharapova plays tennis.
• Unlike statements, many sentences cannot be said to be either true or
false. Questions, proposals, suggestions, commands, and exclamations
usually cannot, and so are not usually classified as statements.
• The following sentences are not statements:
Where is Ms. Lily? (question)
Let’s go to a movie tonight. (proposal)
I suggest you get contact lenses. (suggestion)
Turn off the TV right now. (command)
Fantastic! (exclamation)
• The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or
more premises and exactly one conclusion.
• The premises are the statements / propositions* / assumptions*
that set forth the reasons or evidence, and the conclusion is the
statement that the evidence is claimed to support or imply.
• In other words, the conclusion is the statement that is claimed to
follow from the premises.

Notes:
*A premise is a proposition, within an argument, which provides support for the
conclusion of that argument.
*A premise is an assumption; this assumption is made for the sake of argument.
• Examples of premises and conclusions (Mossakowski, Goguen,
Diaconescu, & Tarlecki, 2006):
 Example 1 The term argument

All marriages that have been performed in compliance Premise

with the Marriage Act shall be valid.
Chris and Elsa have registered their marriage under the Premise
Act.
Therefore, their marriage is valid. Conclusion
 Example 2  The term argument
A member of any secret cult is disqualified from Premise
gubernatorial election.

Bobo Mekafo is a member of ‘eiye’ secret cult. Premise

Bobo Mekafo is disqualified from gubernatorial election. Conclusion
• While the structure of an argument varies a lot, there are often words
typically indicating which sentence is a premise and which is the
conclusion. These words are called premise-indicators and
conclusion-indicators respectively (Lee, 2017). The following are some
common examples;
Type of indicator Indicator words
Premise-indicators: because, since, for, as, follows from, as shown by, in as
They are words and expression much as, as indicated by, the reason is that, for the
that begin or introduce the reason that, may be inferred/derived/deduced from, in
premises in an argument. view of the fact that…
Conclusion-indicators: therefore, so, hence, thus, in consequence,
They are words or expressions that consequently, accordingly, as a result, for this reason, it
begin or introduce the conclusion proves that, it follows that, we may infer, which allow
within an argument. us to infer that, which shows/means/entails/implies
that, which points to the conclusion that…
 Type of indicator Indicator words
Premise-indicators: In as much as Chris and Elsa have registered their marriage
under the Act, their marriage is valid.

Since Bobo Mekafo is a member of ‘eiye’ secret cult, he is

disqualified from gubernatorial election.

Conclusion-indicators: In as much as Chris and Elsa have registered their marriage

  under the Act, therefore their marriage is valid.

Since Bobo Mekafo is a member of ‘eiye’ secret cult, so he is

disqualified from gubernatorial election.

• It is helpful to look for these indicators in a passage to help you identify an

argument.
• There are two criteria to identify arguments:
1. Factual Claim (At least one of the statements must claim to
present evidence or reasons). A claim that something is true.
2. Inferential claim (there must be a claim that something follows
from the alleged evidence).
• The following are non-argument forms:
1. Passage lacking an inferential claim (piece of advice, an
illustration, a report, etc.)
2. Explanations
• The idea that arguments come in two forms, deductive and inductive,
was first asserted by Aristotle (Hurley & Watson, 2018).
• Apart from being able to identify arguments, we also need to be able
to identify the type of argument involved (Lee, 2017).
• A deductive argument is considered valid if all the premises are true,
and the conclusion follows logically from those premises. In other
words, the premises are true, and the conclusion follows necessarily
from those premises.
• An inductive argument is never able to prove the conclusion true,
but it can provide either weak or strong evidence to suggest it may be
true.
• The differences between deductive and inductive argument (Lee,
2017; Hurley & Watson, 2018) are as follows:
Deductive Argument Inductive Argument
It is also called Deductive Logic, Symbolic It is also called inductive reasoning, inductive
Logic, or Formal Logic logic or hypothesis construction
Deductive arguments are those that rest on Inductive arguments are those that rest on
necessary reasoning probabilistic reasoning
Achieves certainty: for a deductively valid Achieves probability: if the premises are true,
argument, if the premises are true, then the then the conclusion is likely to be true,
conclusion must be true although it does not have to be true
Adding new premises may not lead to a Adding new premises may alter the strength
stronger argument of the argument
The conclusion is already contained in the Increases empirical knowledge
premises; hence in a manner of speaking,
no new knowledge is involved
 Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
• Another important logical concept is that of necessary and sufficient
conditions.
A is a sufficient condition for B B is a necessary condition for A
whenever the occurrence of A is all whenever A cannot occur without
that is needed for the occurrence the occurrence of B.
of B.  

Examples:
• Heat and oxygen are both _________ conditions for ignition.
• Being a dog is a _________ condition for being an animal.
 Soundness
• An argument is sound if it satisfies the following two conditions:
 It is valid.
 All of its premises are true.
• Consider the following argument:
Abortion is the killing of an innocent person.
Killing innocent people is morally objectionable.
Therefore, abortion is morally objectionable.
 Truth and Validity
• Truth is whatever is the case. Intelligent beings like humans want to
know what is out there, what the case is and what it is not, what
connections there are between things, what has happened and what
could have happened.
• For example, look at the following argument:
Argument Explanation
(1)It is morally wrong to inflict We may not already know the truth of the
unnecessary pain on other beings. premises. In this example, the truth of
(2)Some animals can feel pain. (1) is subject to moral debate; that of (2) is
(3)Therefore, it is morally wrong to subject to scientific investigation.
inflict unnecessary pain on some However, we do know that if (1) and (2) are
animals. true, then (3) will follow.
• An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows the
premises. That means, the conclusion cannot be false if all the
premises are true. For example, look at the following valid argument:
All cats are mammals, a tiger is a cat,
So, a tiger is a mammal.

• Any argument that is not valid is invalid. It is also known as formal

fallacy. Look at the following invalid argument:
All cats are animals, all dogs are animals,
So, all cats are dogs.

• This is an invalid argument, since we can tell by its form alone.

Fallacies and its category
 Fallacies
• A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct but on
examination is not so (Lee, 2017).
• Formal fallacies are those that may be identified by merely examining the
form or structure of an argument.
• Informal fallacies are those that can be detected only by examining the
content of an argument.
• In distinguishing formal from informal fallacies, remember that formal
fallacies occur only in deductive arguments. Thus, if a given argument is
inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy.
• There are two main types of informal fallacies;
 fallacies arising from the abuse of language
 fallacies of relevance
Fallacies from the abuse of language
• The fallacy of equivocation occurs when the same word or phrase is
used with two or more meanings, deliberately or accidentally, in the
formulation of an argument.
• This is a fallacy due to ambiguity or vagueness.
Example: “Time is money. Time heals all wounds.
Therefore, money heals all wounds”.

• The word ‘time’ is ambiguous in this example and the speaker

employs this ambiguity to make the argument. It is in fact not a valid
argument.
• Amphiboly occurs when one of the statements in an argument has
more than one plausible meaning because of the loose or awkward
way in which the words in that statement are combined.
Example: “The governor says, ‘Save soap and waste paper.’
So, soap is more valuable than paper.”

• The statement could be interpreted as having more than one

meaning, so it is unclear what is really meant.
• A red herring changes the subject and diverts attention to other
issues.
Example: “Reporter: How would the Cabinet respond to the question
of MPs claiming allowances for private entertainment?
Cabinet spokesman: There are more pressing issues at the moment;
shall we talk about the budget cuts in education…”

• In this case, they simply draw the audience’s attention away from the
original issue. They may not even deny such an intention if asked.
• Strictly speaking a red herring is not a fallacy. Yet, it is an improper in
reasoning because it turns away from the problem in question. It
can however be a common strategy used in argumentation when
someone just wants to avoid the issue.
Fallacies of Relevance
• Apart from fallacies due to misuse of language, fallacy also arises when an
argument relies on premises which are not relevant to its conclusion and
therefore cannot establish its truth. These types of fallacies are known as
fallacies of relevance.
• They are fallacious because the relations they appeal to are psychological
rather than logical. These fallacies are informal because relevance is often
determined by content, not just by argument form. Fallacies of relevance
can be classified into several categories;
1. fallacies of appeal appear when an argument appeals to the wrong
type of reason.
2. fallacies about premises and conclusion focus on the argument form,
such as its going in circles or having inappropriate assumptions.
3. fallacious induction concerns inductive arguments.
• Appeal to emotion (fallacy of appeal) occurs when careful reasoning
is replaced with devices to create enthusiasm and emotional
support for the conclusion advanced.
• Specific types include: appeal to pity and apple polishing.
Example: “Student to his tutor: ‘I deserve an A for this assignment
because I’ve broken my wrist while typing it’..”

• This is a typical example of appeal to pity. The student asks for a good
grade not based on his effort and achievement but for something
else, in particular his unfortunate circumstances.
• The aim is to arouse emotion rather than to argue rationally.
• Apple polishing is the strategy where we praise someone in order to
convince them to do the thing that we want.
Example: “Salesperson: Excuse me…I knew as soon as you walked into
the showroom that you will accept nothing but the best. Let me show
you the product…..”

• By praising them first, the salesperson may make a good impression

on the customer, who may then be more willing to accept the
salesperson’s further recommendations.
• Apple polishing is not wrong as a marketing strategy; it simply is a
method of persuasion rather than rational argumentation, and so it
would be fallacious to use it in argument.
• Irrelevant conclusion (fallacy about premises and conclusion) occurs
when the premises miss the point, purporting to support one conclusion
while in fact supporting or establishing another.
Example: “We should cut down the emergency services at hospitals, so it
won’t be abused”.

• When emergency services at hospitals are abused, the proper response

should be to devise ways of preventing such abuse, or to remedy the
situation so those who are in need of the emergency services are not
affected.
• However, instead of drawing the relevant conclusion, the reasoner
proposes cutting emergency services to avoid the abuse.
• This is a bad argument because the conclusion (the suggested solution) is
not relevant to the premises (the problem).
• The fallacy of hasty generalization (fallacious induction) occurs when
one moves too carelessly or quickly from a single case to an
indefensibly broad generalization.
Example: “Mentally ill patients are violent”.

• Generalizations are arguments from specific incidents to general

patterns.
• There are actually very few incidents of violent mental patients
reported in the media, in comparison to the very large number of
nonviolent mental patients.
• However, the latter tend to be ignored or forgotten, whereas the
former retain and call for people’s attention. Hence, this
generalization is too hasty and unreliable.
Conclusion
• Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Logic pertains to all subjects, since
people can reason about anything they can think about.
• Politics, the arts, literature, business, the sciences, and everyday
problems are all subjects open to reasoning.
• Sometimes the reasoning is good; sometimes, not so good.
• People use logic to tell the difference.
• Using logic, we can evaluate bits of reasoning as proper or improper, good
or bad.
• Logic is not the study of how people do reason, but how they should
reason.
References
Bradley, R. & Swartz, N. (1988). Possible Worlds: An Introduction To
Logic And Its Philosophy. The fourth edition. Indianapolis, Indiana:
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Hardegree, G.M. (1999). Symbolic Logic: A First Course. 3rd Edition. New
York City: Mcgraw-Hill College.
Hurley, P.J. & Watson, L. (2018). A Concise Introduction to Logic. 13th
Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Lee, S.F. (2017). Logic: A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself. London:
John Murray Press.
Macleod, C. (2016, 25 August). John Stuart Mill. Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/.
Mahadi Abu Hassan, Norliah Kudus, Ahmad Ridzwan Mohd Noor &
Shahrulanuar Mohamed. (2021). Modul Falsafah Dan Isu Semasa.
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka: Penerbit UTeM.
Manolescu, B.I. (2007). Religious Reasons for Campbell’s View of
Emotional Appeals in Philosophy of Rhetoric. Rhetoric Society
Quarterly. Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 159-180.
Mossakowski, T., Goguen, J., Diaconescu, R., & Tarlecki, A. (2006). What is
a Logic? In Y. Beziau (Ed). Logica Universalis (pp. 113–135).
Perry, J., Bratman, M. & Fischer, J.M. (2019). Introduction to Philosophy.
8th Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strobino, R. (2018, 15 August). Ibn Sina’s Logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-sina-logic/.