Unit 4: INFERENCE and Its CLASSIFICATION

4.1. On INFERENCE

Inference: Description and Its Nature

Inference, in its strict sense, is the process of drawing out the implications of what the mind
already knows in order to achieve a new knowledge of the reality. In its broad sense, Inference is the
process of drawing out a new proposition from a former proposition that does not involve a
development in understanding of the truth and without the mediation of a common third thing.

Antecedent, Consequent, and Sequence

Basically, an inference has two indispensable components, the antecedent and the consequent. The
very nature of an inference necessitates the existence of the two for one of them precedes the other,
while the latter flows from the former.
The term antecedent is derived from the Latin term “antecedo” which means “that which goes
before”; it is defined as “the one through which something is inferred”. On the other hand, the term
consequent is derived from the Latin word “consequor” which means “that which follows after
another”; it is defined as “that which is inferred from the antecedent”.
Hence, it is logical to note that the antecedent is also the cause while the consequent is the
effect. Simply put it that the two complement each other in the formation of an inference and its
integrity is questionable if one is without the other.
For reason of their connection, by virtue of which the consequent flows with logical necessity
from the antecedent, a sequence is formed. A sequence is the end result of a valid logical relationship
and connection of the two components of an inference. Subsequently, if there is a valid connection of
the components, there is also a valid sequence. But, if it can be clearly demonstrated in an argument
that there is an invalid connection, then there is only a pseudo-sequence.

Formal and Material Sequence

The basic issue here that needs an immediate attention is whether a valid sequence comes
from the form or thought content of the inference itself.
A valid sequence that comes from the validity of the form has a formal sequence when it
requires the ideas in an inference be arranged in a manner acceptable to the conventions of correct
thinking without adverting its focus to the thought content of the same inference. However, a valid
sequence that flows from the validity of the thought-content or special character of the inference,
whose requirement is the use of terms and ideas that are verifiable in the outside reality is known as
material sequence.
Examples:
1. All financial institutions are movers of the economy;
Therefore, some movers of the economy are financial institutions.

Explanation:
Example no. 1 is valid under the caption of formal sequence because the arrangement of
terms and propositions are in accordance with the conventions of correct inferential
thinking.

2. Every animal is a sentient being;

Therefore, a sentient being is an animal.

Explanation:
Example no. 2 may not be valid formally because its sequence does not flow from the
form of an inference. However, it has material validity for its sequence comes from the
thoughtcontent of the inference which is factual and cannot be denied by any form of
argumentation that sentiency coexists with animal nature.

1
Truth and Formal Validity
Logical truth is the degree of conformity of one’s thinking with reality. In logic, propositions that
say “things are” as they really are, are true propositions.
Logicians believe that logical truth can sufficiently be achieved if formal validity and sequence are
pursued. Thus, a logician ordinarily asks himself if his inferential thinking is in accordance with the
rules and principles of valid reasoning knowing that formal validity is just equivalent to logical
truth. Hence, the main concern of a logician is not the formation of an inference with material
sequence but the one that has a formal sequence.

4.2. IMMEDIATE INFERENCE

Notion of Immediate Inference

Immediate inference designates either the act of the mind drawing a conclusion in an outright
manner, or simply the logical process of drawing an outright conclusion (Piñ on, 1979: 134).

Immediate Inference versus Mediate Inference

1. Mediate inference, at least two premises (major and minor premises) through which the
conclusion is drawn with logical necessity. Yet, in immediate inference, the conclusion
proceeds from only one premise.
2. Mediate inference relies on the use of a Middle Term through which a comparative judgment
is reached in the conclusion. However, immediate inference does not use any middle term
and does not institute any comparison of ideas in the argument.
3. The conclusion reached in mediate inference conveys a new knowledge of the truth. On the
other hand, immediate inference is only a reformulation of the same truth in the premise and
does not involve a discovery of a new knowledge of the truth.

Kinds of Immediate Inference

There are three (3) kinds of Immediate Inference namely:
1. Eduction
2. Opposed Inference
3. Method of Material Implication

4.2.1. EDUCTION

Definition of Eduction
Eduction is the formulation of a new proposition by interchanging the subject and predicate
terms of an original proposition and/or by the use or removal of negatives.

There are four kinds of eduction process such as the following:

1.Conversion
2.Obversion
3.Contraposition
4.Inversion Conversion
Conversion is the process of interchanging the subject and predicate of an original
proposition but without modifying the quality of the original proposition.
The important terms that have a unique and technical application in the process of conversion are
the following:
1. Convertend - the original proposition
2. Converse - the new propositioned formed by conversion
3. Conversion - the name of the process

The rules that must be observed in performing the process are:

1. The subject and predicate of an original proposition must be interchanged.
2. The quality of the converse must be the same with the convertend.
2
3. Do not extend a particular term found in the convertend to universal in the converse.

Two Kinds of Conversion

1. Simple Conversion (E to E, I to I)
2. Partial Conversion (A to I, E to O)

1) Simple Conversion
The convertend (original proposition) can either be E or I proposition. By simply
interchanging the subject and predicate terms of the convertend does the process of
conversion, yet the quality and quantity in the converse (new proposition) are still the
same as that found in the convertend.
Examples:
a. No man is an island. (Convertend, E)
Therefore, no island is a man. (Converse, E)

Explanation:
Example no. 1 is obviously a convertend that is an E proposition. The rules state that the
subject and predicate of the convertend must be interchange so that the former subject is
already the predicate while the former predicate is already the subject in the converse (the
new proposition and the conclusion). Owing to the need of retaining the convertend’s
quality and quantity in converse, the two propositions have the same quality and quantity.

b. Some tall buildings are financial institutions. ( Convertend, I)

Therefore, some financial institutions are tall buildings. (Converse, I)

Explanation:
Example no. 2 has a convertend which is an I proposition. An I convertend can also be
converted by interchanging its subject and predicate terms so that what is formerly the
subject is already the predicate and what is formerly the predicate is already the subject in
the converse.

2) Partial Conversion
Partial conversion is also a process of interchanging the subject and predicate
terms of the convertend, which also includes the retention of the quality, yet changing its
quantity by reducing it from universal to particular in the converse. Thus, this process is
sometimes known as “reduced conversion.”
In the case of partial conversion, only A and E propositions can be used as
convertends for the process of conversion. Absolutely, O proposition cannot be
converted in any manner for any attempt of conversion would lead to a violation on the
rule of extension of the term, the third rule of conversion process.

Examples:
1. Every businessman is a taxpayer. (Convertend, A)
Therefore, some taxpayer is a businessman. (Converse, I)

2. No businessman is an idiot. (Convertend, E)

Therefore, some idiot is not a businessman. (Converse, O)
Explanations
The partial conversion of an A proposition must end with an I proposition, yet the
quality of the propositions is still the same. As can be observed, the convertend’s subject and
predicate are clearly interchanged in the convertend with retention of the original quality of
the converse. However, note carefully that the original quantity of the convertend,
universal, is now reduced to particular in the converse. The reduction is in keeping with the
third rule on the extension of the term that whatever is particular in the convertend should
not be extended to universal in the convulsion. It is clear that the predicate term “taxpayer”

3
 is only particular in the convertend. Hence, it must remain particular in the converse where
it is already the subject term after the interchanging process is completed.
The partial conversion of E proposition is the same as that of an A proposition,
wherein a reduction of the original quantity is evident. However, in actual practice, the
partial conversion of E is no longer recommended because E is usually converted by simple
conversion. Similarly, in this module, only simple conversion of E proposition is
recommended to avoid the confusion on the part of the students, although the teacher has
the option to use partial conversion for E proposition.
Nevertheless, an exception to the rule is inherent in partial conversion for an A
proposition as convertend wherein it can be converted by simple conversion. Simple
conversion can be applied on an A proposition if the convertend is a statement of a
definition of a thing or an expression of a universal principles whose subject and
predicate terms can be universally interchanged.

Obversion
Obversion is the formulation of a new proposition by retaining the subject and quantity of the
original proposition, changing its quality, and using as predicate the contradictory of the original
predicate.
Three terms are essential to understanding the whole process of Obversion:
1. Obvertend - the original proposition 2.
Obverse - the new proposition
3. Obversion - the name of the process

From the definition, the rules for obversion are clearly derived such as:
1. Retain the subject and the quantity of the obvertend in the Obverse.
2. Change the quality
3. The predicate of the obverse must be the contradictory of the Original predicate.

A, E I, and O propositions can be obverted. The following illustration will be a useful aid in
understanding the whole process.

Obvertend Obverse
A E
E A
I O
O I
Explanation:
From the illustration above, an A proposition as can be obverted only to E proposition
and vice versa. Similarly, an I proposition can be obverted only to O proposition and vice versa.
Examples:
A) Every teacher is a worker. (Obvertend, A)
No teacher is a non-worker. (Obverse, E)

I) Some parents are businessmen. (Obvertend,

I)
Some parents are not non-businessmen. (Obverse, O)

E) No idiot is a teacher. (Obvertend,

E)
Every idiot is a non-teacher. (Obverse, A)

O) A lot of sales transactions are not on cash basis. (Obvertend,

O)
A lot of sales transactions are on non-cash basis. (Obverse, I)
or
4
 A lot of sales transactions are on accrual basis. (Obverse, I)

Explanation
Every example given can be noticed as using the same subject and quantity. However, a
new item is used to modify the original predicate found in the obvertend expressed in its
contradictory form in the obvertend through the use of the prefix “non” or by using the
immediately opposed terms like “cash basis and accrual basis.” In other words, as a general
rule, the predicate can be expressed in its contradictory form in the obverse by prefixing “non”
or by using its immediately opposed term.

Contraposition
Contraposition is a process of formulating a new proposition whereby the contradictory of
the original predicate in the contraponend is used as a subject of the contraposit.
The following terms are very applicable in the discussion of the subject matter:
1. Contraponend - the original proposition
2. Contraposit - the new proposition
3. Contraposition - the process

There are two types of contraposition process such as:

1. Contraposition type 1
2. Contraposition type 2

The following schema will be a useful aid in understanding the whole process at general
view.

Contraponend Contraposit Type 1

A E
E I
I No Contraposit
O I

Explanation
The above table illustrates the process of changing the contraponend to its
corresponding contraposit type 1. Such process is supported by the following formula (assume
that S stands for the subject and P for the predicate):
A
Every S is a P. (Contraponend)
No non-P is an S. (Contraposit type 1, E)

E
No S is a P. (Contraponend)
Some non-P is an S. (Contraposit type 1, I)

I
Some S is a P. (Contraponend)
“No contraposit”

O
Some S is not a P. (Contraponend)
Some non-P is an S. (Contraposit type 1, I)

5
 Contraponend Contraposit Type 2
A A
E O
I No Contraposit
O O

The table shown above is can be more useful to our understanding of the contraposition type
2 if supported by the application of the following formulae (assume that S stands for the subject and
P stands for the predicate):

A
Every S is a P. (Contraponend, A)
No non-P is a non-S. (Contraposit type 2, E)

E
No S is a P. (Contraponend, E)
Some non-P is not a non-S. (Contraposit type 2, O)

I
Some S is a P. (Contraponend, I)
“No Contraposit”

O
Some S is not a P. (Contraponend, O)
Some non-P is a non-S. (Contraposit type 2, I)

By simply substituting the formulae for the appropriate subject and predicate in the
contraponend and contraposits, the process can be completed.

Examples for Type 1

“A (given) becomes O (contraposit 1)”

To illustrate:
Every dog is an animal. (Contraponend, A)
No non-animal is a dog. (Contraposit type 1, E)

“E (given) becomes I (contraposit 1)”

To illustrate:
No note payable is an equity item. (Contraponend, E)
Some non-equity item is a note payable. (Contraposit type 1, I)

“I cannot do the operation due to a violation of the rule”

Some assets are deferrals. (Contraponend, I)
“No contraposit “

“O (given) becomes I (Contraposit 1)”

Some organizations are not corporations. (Contraponend, O)
Some non-corporations are organizations. (Contraposit type 1, I)

Examples for Type 2

“A (given) becomes A (Contraposit 2)”

6
 Every person is a thinking being. (Contraponend, A)
Every non-thinking being is a non-person. (Contraposittype2, A)

“I cannot do the operation due to a violation of the rule”

Some companies are manufacturing concerns. (Contraponend, I)
“No contraposit”

“E (given) becomes O (Contraposit 2)”

No substance is a form. (Contraponend, E)
Some non-form is not a non-substance. (Contraposit type 2,
O)
“O (given) becomes O (Contraposit 2)”
Some financial wizards are not economists. (Contraponend, O)
Some non-economists are not non-financial wizards. (Contraposit type 2,

As revealed by the formulae given above, it is very obvious that contraposition process will
always end with a proposition whose subject is the contradictory of the original predicate of
contraponend whether we are dealing with type 1 or type processes.
Inversion
Inversion is the process of formulating a new proposition wherein the subject of the new
proposition formed is the contradictory of the subject of the original proposition.

The following terms are used technically in this process of inversion:

1. Invertend - the original proposition

2. Inverse - the new proposition
3. Inversion - the process

Inversion process can either be:

1. Partial Inversion (type 1)
2. Complete Inversion (type 2)

Only A and E propositions can be inverted because any attempt in inverting O propositions and I
would extend a particular term to universal in the new proposition.
The following formulae can be easy and practical guides for the completion of the whole process.
Assume that S stands for the subject and P for the predicate.

A E
Invertend Every S is a P. No S is a P.
Inverse Type 1 Some non-S is not a P. Some non-S is a P.
Inverse Type 2 Some non-S is a non-P. Some non-S is not a non-P.

4.2.2. Opposition Inference (the Opposition of Proposition)

Oppositional Inference (Opposition of Proposition)

An inference two propositions with the same subject and predicate differ either in both quality and
quantity, or only on quality but not on quantity, or only on quantity but not on quality; whose truth
values cannot be the simultaneously the same.
There are three types of truth-values contemplated in opposed inference such as:
1. True
2. False
3. Doubtful

There are four (4) modes of opposition:

7
 1. Contradictories
This is an opposition of proposition that differ both in quality and in quantity of proposition.

2. Contrary
This is an opposition of propositions which are both universal but they differ in its
quality.
3. Subcontrary
This is an opposition of propositions which are both particular but they differ in its
quality.

4. Subalterns
This is an opposition of propositions, which are either affirmative; or both propositions are
negative, and they differ in its quantity.

Square of Opposition

A E
Contrary

Subalterns
Subalterns

Contradictories

I O
Subcontrary

The laws that govern oppositional inference are the following:

1. Contradictory opposition:
a. If one is true, the other is false
b. If one is false, the other is true
2. Contrary opposition:
a. If one is true, the other is false
b. If one is false, the other is doubtful 3. Subcontrary opposition:
a. If one is true, the other is doubtful
b. If one is false, the other is true

4. Subalterns
a. If the universal is true, the particular is also true; while if the universal is false, the
particular is doubtful
b. If the particular is true, the universal is doubtful; while if the particular is false, the
universal is also false.

4.2.3. Methods of MATERIAL IMPLICATION

An inference that involves a change in the matter of the original proposition rather than a
change in form. The meaning of the inferred proposition either adds something to or subtracts from
the meaning of the original proposition (Palita, 2010).

Arguments under Method of Material Implication take four (4) forms:

1. The Method of Added determinants
2. The Method of Omitted Determinants
3. The Method of Complex Conception
8
 4. The Method of Converse relation

1. The Method of Added Determinants

This argument involves attaching to the term of the proposition some modifying word or
phrase which has the same meaning for both (Jayme, 1994: 59).
Example: A boy is a person.
Thus, a naughty boy is a naughty person

A mother is a woman.
Hence, a good woman is a good woman.

Note: Error may occur in this form of inference if the added word may have a relative meaning,
which modifies or will give different use and context.
Example: An actor is a man.
Therefore, a good actor is a good man.

A building has rooms.

Thus, a big building has big rooms.

2. The Method of Omitted Determinants

This form of argument is opposite to added determinants. The argument is executed by
removing a word or a modifying word without radically changing the meaning of the original
term (Jayme, 1994: 59).

Example: Sigrid is model employee.

Thus, Sigrid is an employee.

Most basketball stars are six feet tall.

Hence, most basketball stars are tall.

Note: Erroneous form of omitted argument.

Example: Katrina has beautiful false eyelashes.

Therefore, Katrina has beautiful eyelashes.

Many young stars have no talent in acting.

Thus, many of the young stars have no talent.

3. The Method of Complex Conception

This form of inference is somehow similar to the method of added determinants. The difference,
however, is that the added word or phrase is made as the main term and the original terms are used
as modifiers.

Example: A five-peso bill is money.

So, a fake five-peso bill is fake money.

Ten million is large sum of money.

Hence, one who has ten million has large sum of money.

4. The Method of Converse Relation

This inference is a process of formulating a new proposition. The process of formulating the new
proposition expresses a relationship that is the reverse of the original proposition. The argument
9
produces a new proposition, which contains the reverse meaning of the original or given
proposition (Jayme, 1994: 60).

Example: Justine is the son-in-law of Stephen.

Therefore, Stephen is the father in-law of Justine.

Tacloban is north of Palo.

Thus, Palo is South of Tacloban.

10