Logic & Critical Thinking

Week 1

Introduction
Whenever we have to make reliable judgments, we depend on the instrument of reasoning. When
circumstances are complicated and we have to make important decisions, then we try to find out the best
reasons to support our decision. Basically, logic enables us to develop good reasons, by clarifying the rules
of correct reasoning. The study of logic helps us to identify good arguments and to understand why they
are good. The study of logic also helps us to identify bad arguments and to understand why they are bad.
By using the methods and techniques of logic, we can easily differentiate between good and bad
reasoning.

Definition of Logic
The term logic is derived from the Greek word “logos”, meaning reason or rule.

 Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to differentiate correct reasoning from
incorrect reasoning.

 Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning (Copi & Cohen).

 Logic can also be defined as the application of senses to create perceptions (feelings and thinking).
Ideas are generated from sense organs in the following way.

Human mind is blank, and most of the ideas and knowledge comes through the application of
senses (Aristotle & John Locke). Both Aristotle and Locke rejected the philosophy of Plato that
ideas are inherited and inborn.

Visual sense logically highlights colors, size, shape, brightness, darkness etc. Auditory sense
concludes about sounds, melodies etc. Smell sense concludes about aroma i.e. smell, fragrance
etc. Taste sense logically concludes about different flavors. Touch sense logically highlights
hardness, softness, heat, cold etc.

Definition of Critical Thinking

The word critical means “careful and exact”, so critical thinking is the one which is characterized by careful
and exact evaluation and judgment. Critical thinking is also known as logical thinking.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Logic as a Study of Thoughts

Logic studies thoughts. Thoughts make up the process of thinking or reasoning and can be expressed in
three forms:

1. General Idea: It is a set of rational and organized images.

2. Judgment: It is the opinion formed by judging something OR it is the process of reaching a decision.
Judgment requires observation.

3. Inferences: The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.

Logic differentiates correct from incorrect reasoning by judging the process of reasoning. Therefore, it can
be said that logic studies thoughts. Logic generates positive thoughts and eliminates negative thoughts.

Logic in Terms of Science and Art

Science is a systematic study that requires the use of different techniques or methods. Science involves
observation, description and explanation of phenomena. Art is the application of science for the welfare of
human beings.

Logic is a science as well as an art. Logic is a science because it has all the characteristics of science, i.e.
observation, study, description etc. As science logic needs valid and reliable outcomes, and provides
logical proofs for solution of a problem. It is also an art because the ideas developed through critical
thinking are applied for the benefit of human beings and business enterprises. As art, logic finds solutions
to different problems and thus benefits the society.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 2

Propositions

In reasoning we actually make and evaluate arguments, and arguments are built with propositions.
Propositions are the building blocks of reasoning. A proposition asserts that something is the case. It
makes a claim about the world. A proposition can be accepted or denied. Therefore, every proposition is
either true or false.

A question is not a proposition. For example, “do you know how to play cricket?” is just a sentence, but it
does not make a claim about the world. Similarly, a command is also not a proposition because it does
not claim anything. For example, “come quickly” or “keep quiet” are not propositions. Furthermore,
exclamations are also not propositions. Questions, commands and exclamations cannot be characterized
as true or false. They are neither true nor false.

Arguments

Argument is a technical term in logic. We construct arguments with propositions. In any argument we
affirm (to support, to declare true) or assert one proposition on the basis of others. In doing this, we draw
an inference. Inference is a process that ties together a cluster of propositions. Argument is basically a
cluster/ group of propositions that contains two or more than two propositions and there is some relation
among these propositions. Arguments are the chief concern of logic.

Definition of Argument

 Argument refers to a group of propositions in which one proposition is asserted or affirmed on the
basis of other propositions; the truth of the asserted proposition is supported by the other
propositions.

 An argument is a set of propositions that has a conclusion and is discussed within specified
premises.

An argument is not just a group of propositions; it actually is a group of propositions with a structure that
exhibits some inference. This structure is described with the terms conclusion and premise. The
conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the basis of the other propositions of
that argument. Those other propositions which provide support for the conclusion are known as the
premises of the conclusion. There are different forms of arguments; some are simple while others are
complex. The simplest argument consists of one premise and a conclusion that is supported by the
premise.

Example 1: (one premise and one conclusion): A majority of children living in Pakistan are deprived of
basic education (premise). So there is a further need to set up primary schools in different areas of
Pakistan (Conclusion).

In the above example, there are two propositions. The second proposition is the conclusion or the end
result (So there is a further need to set up primary schools in different areas of Pakistan). This result is
drawn on the basis of the first proposition (A majority of children living in Pakistan are deprived of basic
education), i.e. the first proposition provides support for the conclusion and is known as the premise.
Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Example 2: A majority of children living in Pakistan are deprived of primary education. The existing
number of schools does not fulfill the demand of the students. So there is a further need to set up
primary schools in different areas of the country.

The Order of Premises and Conclusion

The order in which premises and conclusion appear can vary. The conclusion of an argument may come
after the premises or it may come before the premises. Following is an example of an argument in which
premise comes first and conclusion comes after the premise.

Example: A majority of children living in Pakistan are deprived of basic education (premise). So there is a
need to set up primary schools in different areas of Pakistan (Conclusion).

Now consider the example of an argument in which conclusion comes first and premise comes second.

Example: There is a need to set up primary schools in different areas of Pakistan, because a majority of
children living in Pakistan are deprived of primary education. OR

All the students got A+ grade in the final examination because they worked really hard throughout the
semester.

How to recognize arguments

The identification of premises and conclusion in an argument may become a difficult task. One useful
method is to use some common indicators. Indicators are words or phrases that tell us about the location
of premises and conclusion in an argument.

Conclusion Indicators

The following words are conclusion indicators. When these words/ phrases appear, it identifies the
presence of conclusion.

 Therefore
 Hence
 So
 In consequence
 As a result
 For this reason
 Thus

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Premise indicators
 Since
 Because
 As
 As shown by

Arguments in Context

The above mentioned indicators help to indicate the presence of an argument or identify the premises and
conclusion. However, such indicators are not always present. Sometimes an argument is recognized by
its context. Following is the example of an argument in which there is no indicator for premise or
conclusion.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 3

Diagramming arguments

Diagramming is a technique for the analysis of arguments. A diagram graphically represents the structure
of an argument. To construct the diagram for an argument we must first number all the propositions it
contains. The propositions should be numbered in the order which they appear. Each number should then
be circled and arrows should be used between the circles. In this way a diagram can be constructed which
shows the relations of premises and conclusion. Note that the conclusion always appears in the space
below the premises. Premises are put on the same horizontal level. The structure of a simple argument is
displayed ahead.

(1) A majority of children living in Pakistan are deprived of primary education. (2) The existing number of
schools does not fulfill the demand of the students. (3) So there is a further need to set up primary
schools in different areas of the country.

1
2

Truth and validity

Validity and Invalidity

An argument is said to be valid when it is successful. Validity refers to the relation of premises and
conclusion in an argument. If a conclusion logically follows from premises, we say that the argument is
valid. So validity can never apply to a single proposition as it requires both premises and conclusion. In
other words we can say that validity and invalidity are the attributes of arguments. Validity and invalidity
are not the attributes of single propositions.

Truth and falsity

Truth and falsity are the attributes of individual propositions. A single statement that serves as the
premise of an argument may be true or false. The statement which serves as the conclusion of an
argument may be true or false. A conclusion might be false but at the same time the argument as a whole
may be valid. So the concept of truth and falsity does not apply to arguments.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 4

Language

Language is a system of signals, sounds or written symbols that is used to communicate thoughts and
feelings. It is a mean of communication that facilitates the exchange of ideas and messages. This
communication can be verbal, non-verbal or symbolic. Language can be used in a variety of ways. It can
be used while reasoning and constructing arguments. It can also be used to express feelings or to give
information about something.

Language functions

There are three major functions of language:

1. Informative function: When language is used to communicate information. For example,

advertisements, news updates etc.

Example: The weather is sunny or all the students are present in the class.

2. Expressive function: When language is used to express our thoughts. Expressive language may
also have informative content.

Example: That’s really great, I am very happy at your success, I was amazed at his behavior.

3. Directive function: Language may also be directive, with or without informative or expressive
content. Directive language seeks to guide or give commands.

Example: Don’t drive fast, keep quiet, come to class on time.

When we affirm or deny propositions, make and evaluate arguments; our main concern is the informative
use of language.

Discourse serving multiple functions

Discourse comes from the latin word, “discursus” which means conversation or speech. Discourse refers to
a formal, verbal discussion of a subject, either written or spoken. It is verbal expression or conversation in
speech or writing. Discourse is always larger than a sentence and it forms arguments (Crystal, 1992).

For example, when a student takes part in a debate competition, he is performing a discourse. If a teacher
delivers a lecture on a particular topic, such as logic, he is also performing discourse. While performing
discourse, the language used can serve multiple functions such as directive, informative or expressive.
Hence we can say that discourse can serve multiple functions.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 5

Emotive words and the logic of emotions

As discussed earlier, language can serve several purposes. It can be expressive and at the same time it
can have an informative element. Clever use of language is highly effective, while careless use of
language leads to misunderstandings and disputes.

The words we normally use may have a negative impact on the attitude of listeners. Therefore, in some
cases gentle words are used for harsh realities. For example, waiters are called servers. The word waiter
has a negative impact on the attitude of the listener, while the word server has a much more positive
impact on the listener. Some words are banned and cannot be used on broadcast media. Although the
literal meanings of these words are fine; but their emotional meanings are unacceptable and rude.

Emotionally colored language is appropriate in some contexts (poetry) while it is unacceptable in other
contexts (research, official discussions). The question is that whether emotive language should be used or
not? The use of emotive language depends on the context/ situation. For example, emotive language is
extensively used in advertisements and political campaigns. Politicians try to attract people by using
emotional language. Advertisements try to get the attention of customers by incorporating emotive words
in colorful ways. However, in logic we try to use a language that is free of emotions. When we perform
reasoning, our language should be free from emotive words and distortions as much as possible. So we
can say that the language used in logic should be emotively neutral.

Theories of emotions

James Lange Theory

It was proposed in 1884 by William James and Carl Lange. This theory states that in response to the
experiences of the world, the nervous system of human beings creates physiological events such as
muscular tension, heart rate increases, perspiration, dryness of the mouth, etc. Emotions happen as a
result of these, rather than being the cause of them.

For example, I see a snake, I start sweating, I am afraid.

Cannon-Bard Theory

This theory was developed by Walter Cannon and Philip Bard. It states that human beings feel emotions
and experience physiological reactions (swearing, trembling etc) simultaneously. More specifically, this
theory states that that emotions result when the thalamus sends a message to the brain in response to a
stimulus, resulting in a physiological reaction.

For example, I see a snake, I am afraid, I start sweating.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Topic set 6

Definition

A definition formally and concisely explains the meaning of a term or symbol. Good definitions are very
helpful in eliminating verbal disputes/ clashes. Two technical terms are commonly discussed while
discussing definitions. These terms are definiendum and definiens. Definiendum is the term or symbol
that is being defined. The definiens is the group of terms that is used to explain the meaning of the
definiendum.

Example: Define Logic.

Logic Definiendum

It is the study of the principles of correct reasoning Definiens

Depending on how they are used, definitions are of five kinds: (1) stipulative, (2) lexical, (3) precising, (4)
theoretical and (5) persuasive.

Types of definitions

1. Stipulative definitions

It is a definition in which a meaning is deliberately (intentionally) assigned to a term or symbol.

Stipulative definition introduces a new symbol or term, and is free to assign (stipulate) any meaning to
the new term. Stipulative definitions are also known as nominal (supposed) definitions.

There are several reasons of using stipulative definitions. First of all, stipulative definitions may protect
secrecy; if the sender and receiver are the only persons who understand the stipulation (military terms
are defined by stipulation and are only understood by selected people). Stipulation may also be performed
for convenience. For example, in science, some numbers are very difficult and cumbersome to write, such
as billion trillion etc. So these numbers have been given stipulative definitions. The number equal to billion
trillion (1021) has been named as zeta. A stipulative definition is neither true nor false. It is neither
accurate nor inaccurate. A symbol that is defined by a stipulative definition did not have that meaning
before it was defined.

We have a stipulative definition when a term is being defined for the first time or in a brand new way. For
example, when a new animal is discovered, a name will be coined for it. When first used, the name is
neither right nor wrong because that animal does not have any prior name. But when it is accepted in the
scientific community, it is no longer a stipulative definition because the scientific community accepts it as
true and now it becomes a lexical definition.

2. Lexical definitions

Most often the term being defined (definiendum) already has some established use. When the purpose of
definition is to define that use or to remove ambiguity, the definition is called lexical. A lexical definition

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
reports a meaning which a definiendum already has. That report may be correct or incorrect. So a lexical
definition may be true or false. For example, the word “bird” already has an established use for the
speakers of English.

 If we define the term bird as “any warm-blooded vertebrate that has feathers”; the definition is
true. It correctly reports the meaning of the term “bird”.

 If we define the term bird as “any animal that is two-footed”; the definition is false. It incorrectly
reports the existing meaning of the term bird.

Similarly, the word “logic” already has some meaning.

 If we define logic as, “the study of the principles of correct reasoning”, the definition is true as it
correctly reports the existing meaning of the word “logic”.

 If we define logic as, “the study of the society”, the definition is false as it incorrectly reports the
existing meaning of the word “logic”.

3. Precising definitions

Precising definitions are used to eliminate ambiguity or vagueness. These definitions explain the already
defined terms with more precision. For example, “meter” can be defined as a unit of measurement for
distance. This is a lexical definition of meter as it reports the existing meaning of the meter. However,
more precision is required to remove ambiguity, so a precising definition of meter is, “the distance
travelled by light in 299,792,458th of a second”.

Precising definitions are different from stipulative definitions because the definiendum is not a new term
and its usage is already known. The key difference between stipulative and precising definitions is that a
stipulative definition may contradict the lexical definition, but precising definitions support the lexical
definition. Precising definitions are also different from lexical definitions, because they do not just report
the existing usage of the definiendum; rather they explain the definiendum beyond normal usage.

4. Theoretical definitions

Theoretical definitions summarize our understanding of an intellectual sphere (field of activity).

Theoretical definitions attempt to create a theory about the nature of the thing in question. These
definitions are neither true nor false; they just propose an understanding of a concept.

5. Persuasive definitions

Persuasive definitions attempt to add emotive meaning to the use of a word. These definitions seek to
influence the attitude of individuals. These definitions use emotionally charged language to influence the
attitude and persuade people. These definitions are commonly used in politics. For example, “tax” is
lexically defined as a fee that is paid to support the government. However, those people who are against
the collection of tax make a persuasive definition of tax that “it is a form of theft”. In this persuasive
definition, we direct or persuade the people that collection of tax is not a fair act.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Purposes of definition

There are five basic purposes of definitions:

1. To increase vocabulary.

2. To reduce ambiguity- A term has ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. For example, “cool” is
an ambiguous term. It may have a meaning of temperature but it may also mean fashionable or nice
looking.

3. To reduce vagueness- A term is vague when its meaning is not clear. Vagueness refers to something
that is unclear. For example, if an advertisement says “jobs available”, it is a vague advertisement
because it is not clear that what kind of jobs are available and for which people.

4. To theoretically explain concepts and ideas.

5. To influence attitudes.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Continued Topic- To be covered before validity and truth

Deductive and Inductive arguments

In every argument, the conclusion is supported by its premises. However, there are two different ways in
which a conclusion may be supported by its premises, and thus there are two great classes of arguments.

 Deductive arguments
 Inductive arguments

Deductive arguments

A deductive argument makes a claim that its conclusion is supported by its premises conclusively. Or a
deductive argument is the one in which it is impossible that its premises are true and conclusion is false.
Or in a deductive argument, if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. In a
deductive argument, the premises provide such a strong support to the conclusion that if the premises are
true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. In other words, the premises provide a
guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Deductive arguments are mostly used in mathematics.

Examples:

 All men are mortal. Allama Iqbal was a man. So Allama Iqbal was mortal.

 Rasheed is a bachelor. Therefore, Rasheed is unmarried.

Inductive arguments

An inductive argument is the one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a
way that if the premises are true, it is unlikely or improbable that the conclusion will be false. The
conclusion follows probably from the premises. In an inductive argument, the support provided by the
premises to the conclusion is so strong that if the premises are true it is highly likely or probable that the
conclusion will also be true. Such arguments provide us with new ideas and expand our knowledge.
Therefore, inductive arguments are widely used in various fields of research.

Example:

 Mr. Khan did BBA from IBMS. Most of the students of IBMS are stupid. So Mr. Khan is very
intelligent. (It is possible that Mr. Khan is an exceptional case and is not stupid).

 It has snowed in Swat every January. So it will snow in Swat this coming January. (It is possible
that this January there may be no snowfall in Swat)

In the above examples, it is highly possible that if the premises are true; the conclusion will also be true.
But still there is some chance/ probability that the premises are true but the conclusion is false.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Topic set 7

Fallacies

We all try hard to reason in a correct manner. Therefore, we must know how to avoid incorrect reasoning.
One of the central tasks of logic is to identify the ways in which we are persuaded to reason incorrectly.
Incorrect reasoning takes place when the premises of an argument fail to support its conclusion. Such an
argument may be called fallacious. So generally, fallacy can be defined as any error in reasoning.

However, logicians use the term “fallacy” more narrowly. Fallacies are typical errors or mistakes in
reasoning that exhibit a pattern than can be identified and named. Fallacies are defects in arguments that
cause an argument to be invalid, unsound or weak. We can also say that fallacies are arguments that
may sound logical, but actually they are not.

Fallacies can be separated into two groups: formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

A formal fallacy is a defect that can be identified by only looking at the logical structure of the fallacy
rather than any specific statement. It is a pattern of mistake that exists in deductive arguments of certain
specifiable form. An informal fallacy is a defect that can be identified only through the analysis of the
actual content of the argument. Informal fallacies arise due to confusions caused by the content of the
language used. In these fallacies, we are deceived and tricked by the language used. Keeping in view the
context, our main focus will be on informal fallacies

Classification of fallacies

The classification of fallacies is a controversial matter in logic and there is no one correct classification of
fallacies. Informal fallacies are numerous and can be grouped into the following categories.

1. Fallacies of relevance

2. Fallacies of defective induction

3. Fallacies of presumption

4. Fallacies of ambiguity

Fallacies of relevance

Fallacies of relevance are bald (open and observable/ not secret or hidden) mistakes. These mistakes
arise when there is no real connection between the premises and conclusion of an argument. As there is
no connection, the premises cannot establish the truth of the conclusion. These fallacies might better be
called fallacies of irrelevance, because there is no relevance between the premises and conclusion of an
argument. Even though the premises may still be psychologically relevant to the conclusion, but actually
it is not. There are six different types of fallacies of relevance that are of principal interest. The modern
as well as the traditional names (usually in Latin) of these fallacies will be discussed.

R1. The appeal to emotion (argument ad populum)

The argument ad populum (to the populace) is the baldest of all fallacies, yet it is one of the most
common. It is an instrument on which every propagandist relies. In is a fallacy in which emotive words

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
are used to influence the emotions of audience. It is a type of fallacy that makes use of emotively
charged language to arouse strong feelings that may lead audience to accept the conclusion of an
argument. The speaker uses his passion to convince his audience. These fallacies are commonly used in
politics, propagandas and advertisements. In short we can say that a fallacious argument ad populum is
the one whose conclusion is defended/ supported by premises that are directed at emotions.

Following is an example of an advertisement of an energy drink named (123 cola).

“123-cola is a drink that will make you feel young and energetic. It will make you feel great and people
will follow you. So you should buy 123-cola”.

This advertisement clearly uses emotive words and tries to influence the emotions of audience, so it is an
argument ad populum.

R2. The red herring

The red herring is a fallacious argument that involves distraction. The red herring means any deliberately
misleading trail. It is a fallacy in which the attention of readers or listeners is deflected away from the real
issue by using some distraction. Some event is intentionally introduced to mislead the readers or
listeners.

For example, a student got less marks in examination and he presented the following argument to his
teacher.

“I should not be given less marks in the paper, there are other students who get marks by cheating and
management should take action”.

The real issue is that whether the student has written correct answers in the paper or not. The fact that
other students get marks by cheating is a different case, and is used as a distraction to mislead the
teacher.

R3. The straw man

The straw man argument is an informal fallacy committed when the position of one’s opponent is
misrepresented and that distorted position is made the object of attack. It involves misrepresenting an
opponent’s position so that it becomes easy to refute (prove false). The actual position of a person is
ignored and an exaggerated or distorted position is presented that is easy to oppose or attack. The
person committing the straw man fallacy highlights the most extreme position of the opponent and then
argues against that extreme position. This fallacy has the following pattern.

Person A has position X

Person B presents position Y (a misrepresented and distorted position)

Person B attacks position Y

Therefore, X is false/ incorrect

For example, we have the following argument.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Teachers of IBMS should be given freedom in paper checking. As this will allow teachers to give marks to
students in the most appropriate manner and students will get marks for their actual performance.

Now we oppose the above argument by using a red herring fallacy as follows.

“Last year a teacher of IBMS deliberately failed a student due to personal bias and favoritism. So teachers
of IBMS should not be given freedom/ independence in paper checking”.

This straw man argument ignores the positive aspect of “freedom in paper checking” and focuses on the
minority issue of a teacher who was dishonest and unfair”.

The straw man fallacy can also be viewed as a variety of red herring as the attention is diverted from the
real issue.

R4. Argument against the person (argument ad hominem)

The phrase ad hominem means “against the person”. It is a fallacy in which we reject an argument by
attacking the person who presented the argument (the author) and not the argument itself. An argument
is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the argument.
For example, the author’s character, nationality or religion can be attacked. This personalized attack can
be might be conducted in two different ways, therefore we have two major forms of argument ad
hominem

a. Argument ad hominem, Abusive

In this fallacy the character, intelligence or even integrity (truthfulness) of a person (presenting an
argument) is attacked. The opponent (person being attacked) may be insulted because he is from a
certain religious persuasion (atheist), or he has a bad character or he has been associated with bad
character people. For example, if an American person rejects an argument of a Pakistani person only
because he is from Pakistan.

b. Argument ad hominem, circumstantial

In this fallacy the circumstances or situation of a person is attacked. The person’s employment, political
affiliation or other circumstances may be used as grounds for accepting or rejecting his argument. For
example, a teacher makes the following argument.

“The salaries of teachers should be increased, because there has been no increase in salary since 2008”.

A person from finance department opposes and rejects the above argument by presenting the following
argument ad hominem abusive.

“You are in favor of increase in salaries of teachers because you are also a teacher”.

R5. The appeal to force (Argument ad baculum)

The Latin phrase argument ad baculum means “argument to the stick”. It is a fallacy in which force, or
the threat of force, is relied upon to win consent. The person presenting the argument (author) tells the
reader/audience that if he or she does not accept the truth of the argument, the results or the
consequences will be unpleasant. For example, if a teacher tells students,

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
“No one should complain to administration about my lecture, because if anyone complains, I will fail him in
the examination”.

R6. Missing the point (Ignoratio elenchi)

The Latin term “ignoratio elenchi” means “a mistaken disproof or refutation”. This fallacy is committed
when one does not refute (prove false) the actual thesis (idea or claim), but some other thesis due to
misunderstanding or mistake. The arguer misunderstands the logical implications of the premises. For
example, a person claims that it is very important to increase funds for public schools. Another person
responds that a child’s education involves much more than formal schooling and is started long before
formal schooling. In this case, the responding person misses the actual point (importance of funds for
public schools) and responds with an irrelevant thesis (the importance of preschool education). Therefore,
the person misses the point.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

In arguments, the meaning of words or phrases may shift/change. A term may have one sense in the
premises, but a quite different sense in the conclusion. Inference drawn depending on such changes is of
course fallacious. Such fallacies are fallacies of ambiguity or sometimes “sophisms”. There are five
different types of fallacies of ambiguity.

A1. Equivocation

The fallacy of equivocation is the one in which two or more meanings of the same word or phrase have
been confused. Most words have more than one literal meaning. When several meanings of a word or
phrase are confused, the fallacy of equivocation is committed. For example, a sign board was present at a
place with the following words:

“Fine for parking here”

In this example, the word “fine” has two meanings: it may mean “penalty” or “okay/ all right”. So a
person parked his car in that place as it was fine (all right) for parking cars there. But actually, there was
a penalty for parking cars in that area and it was a “no parking” zone.

A2. Amphiboly

The word amphiboly has been derived from the Greek, meaning “doubleness of a lump”. This fallacy arises
from loose, awkward or mistaken way in which words are combined, which leads to alternative possible
meanings. The fallacy of amphiboly involves the use of sentences which can be interpreted in multiple
ways with equal justification. For example,

“The tourist went to a village and took picture of some local residents, but they were not developed”.

Two meanings can be taken from the phrase “they were not developed”. Either the local residents were
not developed or the pictures were not developed. So this is a fallacy of amphiboly.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
A3. Accent

The Fallacy of Accent was one of the original fallacies described by Aristotle. Accent (pronunciation) refers
to the stress placed upon a word in a sentence or a syllable in a word. The pronunciation or accent of a
word may change the meaning of it. These fallacies arise when stress is placed on a word or phrase.

For example, “I resent that letter”.

The word resent means dislike or sent again. In this example it is not clear whether the person disliked
the letter or he sent it again. This ambiguity can be removed if the word “resent” is pronounced
correctly”.

A4. Composition

This fallacy is committed when a conclusion is drawn about the whole based on the features of its
constituents, and no justification is provided for the inference. It has the following pattern.

All the parts of object “A” have property “X”. So object “A” has property “X”.

For example, “Every player of the team is a superstar star and a great player, so the team is a great
team”. Or,

“Human body is made up of cells. Cells are invisible to naked eye. So the human body is invisible to
naked eye”.

A5. Division

The fallacy of division is opposite to the fallacy of composition. It takes place when a conclusion is drawn
about the parts of a whole, based on the features of the whole. It is committed when we assume that
what is true of the whole must also be true of the parts. It has the following pattern.

Object “A” has property “X”. So, all the parts of object “A” have property “X”.

For example, “human body is made up of cells. Human body is visible to naked eye. So cells are visible
to naked eye”. Or,

“Americans use much more electricity than Pakistanis. So Mr. Tom, who lives in America uses much more
electricity than Mr. Khan who lives in tribal areas of Pakistan”.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 9

Classical logic

Categorical propositions

Classical logic mainly deals with arguments that are based on the relations of classes of objects to one
another. A class is a collection of all objects that have some specified characteristic in common, for
example, the class of all males, the class of all dogs, the class of all mammals etc. In a deductive
argument we present propositions that state the relations between one category and some other category.
Such propositions are called categorical propositions. A categorical proposition is a proposition that
relates two classes to one another. For example,

“No athletes are vegetarians. All cricket players are athletes. Therefore, no cricket players are
vegetarians”.

The above argument contains three categorical propositions. These categorical propositions are about the
class of all athletes, the class of all vegetarians and the class of all cricket players. One must be able to
identify the kinds of categorical propositions and the relations among them.

The four kinds of categorical propositions

There are only four kinds of standard-form categorical propositions. Following are the examples of these
four kinds.

1. All politicians are liars

2. No politicians are liars

3. Some politicians are liars

4. Some politicians are not liars

Following is the explanation of each of these kinds.

1. Universal affirmative propositions: In these propositions, we assert that the whole of one class is
included or contained in another class. For example, all politicians are liars. It asserts that every member
of one class (the class of politicians) is a member of another class (the class of liars). A universally
affirmative proposition can be written schematically as

All S is P

The letters S and P represent the subject and predicate terms respectively. Such as propositions affirms
that there is a relation of class inclusion between the two classes and says that the inclusion is complete
or universal. In other words, all members of S are also members of P. These propositions are also called
A propositions.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
2. Universal negative propositions: In these propositions we assert that the whole of one class is
excluded from another class. For example, no politicians are liars. It asserts that the subject class, S (the
class of politicians) is wholly excluded from the predicate class, P. Schematically, a universal negative
proposition can be written as,

No S is P

The letters S and P represent the subject and predicate terms respectively. This kind of proposition denies
the inclusion between the two terms (subject and predicate) and denies it universally. These propositions
say that no members of S (class of politicians) are members of P (class of liars). Such propositions are
also called E propositions.

3. Particular affirmative propositions: In these propositions we assert that some members of one
class are members of the other class. For example, some politicians are liars. It asserts that the class of
politicians (S) and the class of liars (P) have some member or members in common. By “some” we mean
at least one. So such propositions assert that at least one member of the subject class, S, is also a
member of the predicate class, P. Schematically, a particular affirmative proposition can be written as,

Some S is P

These kinds of propositions affirm the relation of class inclusion between the two classes and affirm it only
partially. They say that the subject class is partially included in the predicate class. Such propositions are
also called I propositions.

4. Particular negative propositions: These propositions say that at least one member of the subject
class is excluded from the whole of the predicate class. These propositions deny the inclusion of some
members of subject class in the predicate class; however, this denial is not universal. These propositions
can be schematically written as,

Some S is not P

For example, some politicians are not liars. This propositions says that at least one member of the subject
class (the class of politicians) is not included in the predicate class (the class of liars). Such propositions
are also called O propositions.

Venn Diagrams

Categorical propositions are often represented with Venn diagrams, invented by the English logician and
mathematician, John Venn (1824-1923). Venn diagrams graphically display the sense of each categorical
proposition. These diagrams use two interlocking circles; the circles represent the classes involved. One
circle is labeled S, for the subject class and the other circle is labeled P, for the predicate class. The Venn
diagrams for all four standard-form categorical propositions are shown ahead.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Venn diagram for A propositions or universal affirmative propositions

Venn diagram for E propositions or universal negative propositions

Venn diagram for I propositions or particular affirmative propositions

Venn diagram for O propositions or particular negative propositions

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Quality, quantity and distribution

A. Quality

Every standard-form categorical proposition either affirms or denies a relation between classes. If a
proposition affirms some class inclusion, whether complete or partial, its quality is affirmative. So the A
proposition “all S is P” and the I proposition “some S is P”, are both affirmative in quality. The letter
names of these propositions (A,I) are thought to come from the Latin word, “AffIrmo,” meaning “I affirm”.

If a proposition denies class inclusion whether completely or partial, it’s quality is negative. So the E
proposition “No S is P” and the O proposition “some S is not P”, are both negative in quality. The leter
names of these propositions (E,O) are thought to come from the Latin word, “nEgO”, meaning “I deny”.
Every categorical proposition has one quality or the other, that is, it is either affirmative or negative in
quality.

B. Quantity

Every standard-form categorical proposition has some class as its subject. If the proposition refers to all
the members of the class designated by its subject term, its quantity is universal. So the A proposition
“All S is P” and the E proposition “No S is P”, are both universal in quantity. If the proposition refers only
to some members of the class designated by its subject term, its quantity is particular. So the I
proposition “Some S is P” and the O proposition “Some S is not P”, are both particular in quantity.

The quantity of a standard-form categorical proposition is indicated by the word with which it begins. “All”
and “no” indicate that the proposition is universal. “Some” indicates that the proposition is particular.

C. Distribution

Categorical propositions are about classes. These classes are designated by the subject (S) and predicate
(P) terms. A proposition may refer to its classes in different ways. It may refer to all members of a class,
for example, “all politicians are liars”. This proposition refers to all politicians. A proposition may also
refer to some members of a class, for example, “some politicians are liars”. This proposition refers only to
some politicians. In order to understand the ways in which subject and predicate terms can occur in
categorical propositions, we introduce a technical term distribution.

A proposition distributes a term if it refers to all members of the class designated by that term. Or, a
distributed term is a term of a categorical proposition that is used with reference to every member of a
class. If a term is not being used to refer to each and every member of a class, it is not distributed or
undistributed.

Rule for identifying distribution: In order to remember the distribution status of subject and predicate
terms in categorical propositions, keep the following rule in mind.

If the quantity of a proposition is universal, subject term will be distributed

If the quantity of a proposition is particular, subject term will be undistributed
If the quality of a proposition is affirmative, predicate term will not be distributed
If the quality of a proposition is negative, predicate term will be distributed

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
The following table summarizes the key characteristics of categorical propositions.

Proposition Name and Quality Quantity Distribution Example

Form Type
Subject Predicate

All S is P A Universal Affirmative Universal Distributed Undistributed All teachers are wealthy
affirmative

No S is P E Universal Negative Universal Distributed Distributed No thieves are good people

negative

Some S is P I Particular Affirmative Particular Undistributed Undistributed Some chemicals are poisons
affirmative

Some S is O Particular Negative Particular Undistributed Distributed Some politicians are not liars
not P negative

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 10

The traditional square of opposition

The standard-form categorical propositions having the same subject and predicate terms may (obviously)
differ from each other in quality, or in quantity or in both. Such kind of differing has been traditionally
called opposition. Various kinds of oppositions are correlated with some very important truth relations
as follows.

A. Contradictories

Two propositions are contradictories if one is the denial or the negation of the other, that is, both of them
cannot be true or false. Two standard-form categorical propositions that have the same subject and
predicate terms but differ from each other in both quality and quantity are called contradictories.

The A proposition (universal affirmative) and the O proposition (particular negative) are contradictories.
Moreover, the E proposition (universal negative) and the I proposition (particular affirmative) are also
contradictories.

A “all S is P” is contradicted by O “Some S is not P”.

E “No S is P” is contradicted by I “Some S is P”.

B. Contraries

Two propositions are said to be contraries if they cannot both be true, although they may both be false.
Universal propositions (A and E) having the same subject and predicate terms but differing in quality (one
affirming the other denying) are known as contraries. So the A proposition (all politicians are liars) and
the E proposition (no politicians are liars) cannot both be true, but they can both be false and can be
regarded as contraries.

A “All S is P” and E “No S is P” are contraries.

C. Subcontraries

Two propositions are said to be subcontraries if they cannot both be false, although they may both be
true. Particular propositions (I and O) having the same subject and predicate terms but differing in
quality (one affirming the other denying) are subcontraries. So the I proposition “some politicians are
liars” and the O proposition “some politicians are not liars” could both be true, but they could not both be
false and therefore they are regarded as subcontraries.

I “Some S is P” and O “Some S is not P” are subcontraries.

D. Subalternation

When two propositions have the same subject and predicate terms, and agree in quality but differ in
quantity, they are called corresponding propositions. The A proposition “all spiders are eight-legged
animals” has a corresponding I proposition “some spiders are eight-legged animals. Similarly, the E
proposition “no whales are fishes” has a corresponding O proposition “some whales are not fishes”. This
opposition between a universal proposition and its corresponding particular proposition is known as

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
subalternation. In any such pair of corresponding particular propositions, the universal proposition is
called the superaltern, and the particular proposition is called the subaltern. Furthermore, in
subalternation, the superaltern implies the truth of the subaltern. So, from the universal affirmative “all
politicians are liars”, the corresponding particular affirmative “some politicians are liars”, was held to
follow.

The square of opposition

There are four ways in which propositions may be opposed, that is, as contradictories, contraries, sub-
contraries and sub- and super alternation. These four ways of opposition are represented using a diagram
called the square of opposition. Relations exhibited by this square of opposition were believed to
provide logical basis for validating certain forms of arguments. It is important to note the difference
between mediate and immediate inferences.

When a conclusion is drawn from more than one premise, the inference is said to be mediate. However,
when a conclusion is drawn from only one premise, the inference is said to be immediate.

A number of useful inferences can be immediately drawn from the information contained in the traditional
square of opposition. Given the truth and falsehood of any one of the four standard-form categorical
proposition, the truth or falsehood of some or all of other standard-form categorical propositions can be
immediately inferred. Following are the immediate inferences based on the traditional square of
opposition.

A is given as true: E is false; I is true; O is false

E is given as true: A is false; I is false; O is true
I is given as true: E is false; A and O are undetermined
O is given as true: A is false; E and I are undetermined
A is given as false: O is true; E and I are undetermined
E is given as false: I is true; A and O are undetermined
I is given as false: A is false; E is true; O is true
O is given as false: A is true; E is false; I is true

A proposition is undetermined if the truth and falsity is not determined.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Week 11

Categorical syllogisms

Generally, a syllogism is a deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises.
Arguments that rely on A, E, I and O propositions and have two categorical propositions as premises and
one categorical proposition as conclusion are called syllogisms. More formally, a categorical syllogism may
be defined as a deductive argument consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain
exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly two of the constituent propositions.

Following is an example of a valid standard-form categorical proposition.

No heroes are cowards. Some soldiers are cowards. Therefore, some soldiers are not heroes.

A categorical proposition is said to be in standard form (as the above example) when the following two
things are true of it.

1. Its premises and its conclusion are all standard-form categorical propositions.

2. Those propositions are arranged in a specified standard order (in a standard-form syllogism, the major
premise is always stated first, the minor premise second, and the conclusion last).

In order to understand the standard order of syllogisms, we need the logical names of the premises of the
syllogism, and the names of the terms of the syllogisms. In other words, we need to understand the
different parts of the syllogism.

Terms of the syllogism: Major, minor and middle

In the above stated argument, the three categorical propositions contain exactly three terms: heroes,
soldiers and cowards. To identify the terms by name, we look at the conclusion of the syllogism. The
conclusion in our example is an O proposition (some soldiers are not heroes). The term that occurs as the
predicate of the conclusion (heroes, in this example) is called the major term of the syllogism. The term
that occurs as the subject of the conclusion (soldiers, in this example) is called the minor term of the
syllogism. The third term of the syllogism “cowards” that never occurs in the conclusion but always
appears in both the premises is called the middle term.

The premises of the syllogism

The premises of a syllogism also have names. Each premise is named after the term that appears in it.
The major term and the minor term must each occur in a different premise. The premise containing the
major term is called the major premise. In the above example, “heroes” is the major term, so the
premise containing the term “heroes” is the major premise (no heroes are cowards).

The premise containing the minor term is called the minor premise. In the above example, “soldiers” is
the minor term, so the premise containing the term “soldiers” is the minor premises (some soldiers are
cowards).

The parts of a standard-form categorical proposition

Major term The predicate term of the conclusion
Minor term The subject term of the conclusion
Middle term The term that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion
Major premise The premise containing the major term
Minor premise The premise containing the minor term

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011
Thus, in a standard-form syllogism, the major premise is always stated first, the minor premise second,
and the conclusion last.

The mood of the syllogism

Every syllogism has a mood. The mood of a syllogism is determined by the types (A, E, I, O) of standard-
form categorical propositions it contains. The mood of the syllogism is therefore represented by three
letters, and those three letters are always given in standard-form order. The first letter names the type of
syllogism’s major premise; the second letter names the type of syllogism’s minor premise; the third letter
names the type of syllogism’s conclusion. In our example, the major premise is an E proposition, the
minor premise is an I proposition, the conclusion is an O proposition. So the mood of the syllogism is EIO.

Logic & Critical Thinking- Learning Material for BBA (Hons) 4th- September 2011