Logic Lecture 15

Logic & Critical
Thinking
Categorical Propositions
LECTURE 15
Course Instructor: Rizwan Ahmad | Email: rizwan.ahmad@riphah.edu.pk
Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 1

Lecture Recap
 Fallacies of Ambiguity
 Equivocation
 Amphiboly
 Accent
 Composition
 Division

Objectives
1. The Theory of Deduction

2. Classes and Categorical
Propositions
3. The Four Kinds of Categorical
Propositions
4. Quality, Quantity, and
Distribution

Categorical Propositions
Chapter 05
Copi & Cohen Ch#05
4
The Theory of Deduction
 The theory of deduction is intended to

explain the relationship between
premises and conclusion of a valid
argument.
 Provide techniques for the appraisal of
deductive arguments, that is, for
discriminating between valid and
invalid deductions.
5
 Deductive Argument
 An argument whose premises are claimed to provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
 Every deductive argument is either valid or invalid.
 Validity
 A characteristic of any deductive argument whose
premises, if they were all true, would provide
conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion.
Such an argument is said to be valid.
6
 Two Theories
 “Classical” or “Aristotelian” Logic
 after the Greek philosopher who
initiated this study
 “Modern” or “Modern Symbolic” Logic
 Developed mainly during the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries.
Classical logic is the topic of this

chapter
7
 Classical or Aristotelian logic
 The Aristotelian study of deduction focused on
arguments containing propositions called
“categorical propositions” which involve categories
or classes.
 The traditional account of syllogistic reasoning, in
which certain interpretations of categorical
propositions are presupposed.
8
Aristotle
 It was Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the most famous
student of Plato (428-347 BCE), who was the first
to develop a formal system of logic.
 Aristotle’s followers gathered his writings on logic
and compiled them into what they called the
Organon, which is a word that means
"instrument."
 And this is exactly how Aristotle conceived of logic,
as an instrument for the scientific and philosophical
investigation of reality.
9
Aristotle vs Plato (School of Athens)
Idealism vs
Materialist
 Aristotle has
just kicked me
just as a colt
kicks its
mother
 Plato is dear to
me, but dearer
still is truth
10
Classes and Categorical Propositions
 Categorical Proposition
 This argument contains three categorical
propositions
 Example:
 No athletes are vegetarians.
 All football players are athletes.
 Therefore no football players are vegetarians.
This argument is valid or invalid?
11
 Class
 The collection of all objects that have some specified
characteristic in common.
1. All of one class may be included in all of another class. Thus the
class of all dogs is wholly included (or wholly contained) in the
class of all mammals.
2. Some, but not all, of the members of one class may be included
in another class. Thus the class of all athletes is partially
included (or partially contained) in the class of all females.
3. Two classes may have no members in common. Thus the class
of all triangles and the class of all circles may be said to
exclude one another.
These three relations may be applied to classes, or categories, of

every sort
12
 Categorical Proposition
 The propositions with which such arguments
(in slide 12) are formulated are therefore
called categorical propositions.
 Categorical propositions are the fundamental
elements, the building blocks of argument, in
the classical account of deductive logic.
13
Categorical proposition
 A proposition that can be analyzed as being about
classes, or categories, affirming or denying that one
class, S, is included in some other class, P, in whole
or in part.
 In a deductive argument we present propositions
that state the relations between one category and
some other category.
 A proposition that can be analyzed as being about
classes, or categories, affirming or denying that one
class, S, is included in some other class, P, in whole
or in part.
14
Relationships Between Classes
1. There are various ways in which two

classes may be related to each other.
2. These various relationships between
classes are affirmed or denied by
categorical propositions.
3. There can be just four standard
forms of categorical propositions.
15
The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
1. Universal affirmative propositions. A

2. Universal negative propositions. E
3. Particular affirmative propositions. I
4. Particular negative propositions. O
16
The Four Kinds of Categorical Propositions
 Here are examples of each of the four

kinds of Categorical Propositions:
1. All politicians are liars.
2. No politicians are liars.
3. Some politicians are liars.
4. Some politicians are not liars.
We will examine each of these kinds in turn.
17
1- Universal affirmative propositions
 The whole of one class is included or contained in

another class.
 Example:
“All politicians are liars”
 Written schematically as
All S(subject(politician)) is P (predict(liar)) (A)
All S are not P (E)
Some S are P (I)
Some S are not P (O)
• S=subject, P=predicate
• They are also called A propositions
18
1- Universal affirmative propositions
 We label one circle S, for “subject class,” and the

other circle P, for “predicate class.” The diagram for
the A proposition, which asserts that all S is P, shows
that portion of S which is outside of P shaded out,
indicating that there are no members of S that are not
members of P. So the
A proposition is diagrammed thus:
19
2-Universal negative propositions
 A proposition in which it is denied, universally, that

any member of the class of politicians is a member of
the class of liars.
“No politicians are liars,”
 It asserts that the subject class, S, is wholly excluded

from the predicate class, P. Schematically, categorical
propositions of this kind can be written as
No S is P.
They are also called E propositions
20
2-Universal negative propositions
 The diagram for the A proposition, which asserts that all S is P,

shows that portion of S which is outside of P shaded out,
indicating that there are no members of S that are not members
of P. So the
 A proposition is diagrammed thus:
21
3. Particular affirmative propositions
 Affirms that some members of the class of all

politicians are members of the class of all liars. But it
does not affirm this of politicians universally.
“Some politicians are liars,”
Some S is P.
 Some=at least one
 They are also called I propositions
22
3. Particular affirmative propositions
 The diagram for the I proposition indicates that there

is at least one member of S that is also a
member of P by placing an x in the region in which
the two circles overlap. So the I proposition is
diagrammed thus:
23
4. Particular negative propositions.
“Some politicians are not liars,”

 Says that at least one member of the class designated
by the subject term S is excluded from the whole of
the class designated by the predicate term P.
 It is written schematically as
Some S is not P
• They are also called O propositions.
24
4. Particular negative propositions.
 The diagram for the O proposition indicates that

there is at least one member of S that is not a
member of P by placing an x in the region of S that
is outside of P. So the O proposition is diagrammed
thus
25
26
Q&A
Riphah International University, Lahore

27

Logic Lecture 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic Lecture 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Logic Lecture 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logic & Critical

Course Instructor: Rizwan Ahmad | Email: rizwan.ahmad@riphah.edu.pk

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 1

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 2

1. The Theory of Deduction

Copyright ©2020 Riphah International University, Lahore 3

Copi & Cohen Ch#05

 The theory of deduction is intended to

Classical logic is the topic of this

This argument is valid or invalid?

These three relations may be applied to classes, or categories, of

1. There are various ways in which two

1. Universal affirmative propositions. A

 Here are examples of each of the four

We will examine each of these kinds in turn.

 The whole of one class is included or contained in

 We label one circle S, for “subject class,” and the

 A proposition in which it is denied, universally, that

 It asserts that the subject class, S, is wholly excluded

They are also called E propositions

 The diagram for the A proposition, which asserts that all S is P,

 Affirms that some members of the class of all

“Some politicians are liars,”

 The diagram for the I proposition indicates that there

“Some politicians are not liars,”

 The diagram for the O proposition indicates that

Riphah International University, Lahore

You might also like