LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

Logic: Definitions.
1. Logic is the study used to distinguish Good from bad and correct from Incorrect.
Or
2. Logic is the study of the Methods and principles used to distinguish correct from
incorrect reasoning.
3. Logic is the appeal to thoughts. Thoughts can be expressed in three forms.
1. General Idea
2. Judgment
3. Inference i.e. conclusion
4. Logic is a process of application of senses.
i.e.
 Visual sense logically high lights colour, size, shapes, brightness, darkness.
 Touch sense which logically high lights, hardness, softness, warmness and
coldness.
5. According to sigmand fruand logic in a study which highlights the consciousness and
unconsciousness
 Logic as a study of thoughts.
 In definition logic is a process of application of senses and perception which results in
positive thoughts.
 Logic is a process of critical thinking. This is also known as logical thinking.
 Logic and critical thinking are correlated to each other and are the branches of philosophy
which facilitate the application of fruit full ideas in the business.
 Aristotle and John lock believed that the human mind is a blank slate and that the most
ideas and knowledge comes through the application of senses.
 Hence the knowledge of logic and critical thinking is a basic need for the managers of
modern world business.
 Logic in term of art science.
 Science is the knowledge of nature while art is the application of science for the well fare
of human being.
 As Science As Art
1. Logic Natural Ideas developed will be
utilized & applied for the success of
business.
2. Need Valid Result Results are used for the benefit
of human kind.
LOGIC & CRITICAL THINKING
Premises & Conclusion
Premises:- are the limitations or boundary walls in which certain arguments can be discussed. I.e.
Job design.
Premises are
1. Job Analysis
2. Job Specifications
3. Job Enrichment
4. Work Environment
5. Quality of work etc.
Conclusion are the results obtained from different arguments discussed in the premises e.g
Impacts of job analysis on the
1. Business profitability.
2. Stock holder wealth
3. Stock holder Satisfaction
Logic & critical thinking are always based on certain premises & conclusion one can not
move logically without premises & conclusion.
Basic terms
Normally the following terms are used in the process of logic & critical thinking these
terms are known as the basic terms of logic.
1. Idea:- It refers to a set of images originated in a creative form.
2. Proposition:- Refers to the ideas which is expressed in a specified language or different
languages
3. Such as:-
1. I speak (English language)
 2. Ich speech (German language)
3. je parle (French language)
4. Arguments:- refers to the set of proposition which is discussed with in specified
premises.
5. Judgment:- It is the end result of the logic process which may be denial or affirmation of
the connection among ideas.
The Order of Premises & Conclusion
In the process of logic & critical thinking we discussed that premises & conclusion are
the milestones, hence the order of premises & conclusion in this process is that logic & critical
thinking are always be initiated with premises & Conclusion then after detail & fruit full
discussion results will be concluded.
Hence, the order is that premises come first & conclusion at the end.
i.e We open the logical & critical thinking process with premises & end this process with
conclusion.
e.g (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) (Premises) the
right of the people to keep & bear Arms shall not be infringed.
USA Constitution
Premises & conclusion indicator.
Distinction b/w premises & conclusion can be made in the process of logic & critical
thinking through the following indicators.
Premises indicator (Reason show)
Since, because, as for, as, follows from.
Conclusion indicator (Result)
Therefore, hence, thus, so, accordingly as a result etc.
Arguments in context.
Logic & critical thinking is a process where argument will always be discussed in
reference to the context.
e.g prohibition of riba in the light of holy Quran, Ahadith or in fiqa.
The study of motion, reaction & genes in the light of physics, chemistry biology
respectively.
BASIC CONCEPTS
Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day
to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them
when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and
principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing
arguments of our own. Its purpose, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods
and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad. Among the benefits to be expected
from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the
arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.

An argument, as it occurs in logic, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are
claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). All arguments
may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion
and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good
arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments. As is apparent from the above definition, 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 us examine the features of this definition
in greater detail. First of all, an argument is a group of statements.
A statement is a sentence that is either true or false—in other words, typically a declarative sentence or a
sentence component that could stand as a declarative sentence. The following sentences are statements:
Aluminum is attacked by hydrochloric acid.
Broccoli is a good source of vitamin A.
Argentina is located in North America.
Napoleon prevailed at Waterloo.
Rembrandt was a painter and Shelley was a poet.
The first two statements are true, the second two false. The last one expresses two statements, both of
which are true. Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of a statement. Thus, the truth
value of the first two statements is true, the truth value of the second two is false, and the truth value of
the last statement, as well as that of its components, is true.
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:
What is the atomic weight of carbon? (question)
Let’s go to the park today (proposal)
We suggest that you travel by bus (suggestion)
Turn to the left at the next corner (command)
All right! (exclamation)
The statements that make up an argument are divided into one or more premises and one and only one
conclusion. The premises are the statements 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. Here is an example of an argument:
All crimes are violations of the law/Theft is a crime//Therefore, theft is a violation of the law.
The first two statements are the premises; the third is the conclusion. (The claim that the premises support
or imply the conclusion is indicated by the word ‘‘therefore.’’) In this argument the premises really do
support the conclusion, and so the argument is a good one. But consider this argument:
Some crimes are misdemeanors/Murder is a crime//Therefore, murder is a misdemeanor.
In this argument the premises do not support the conclusion, even though they are claimed to, and so the
argument is not a good one.
One of the most important tasks in the analysis of arguments is being able to distinguish premises from
conclusion. If what is thought to be a conclusion is really a premise, and vice versa, the subsequent
analysis cannot possibly be correct. Frequently, arguments contain certain indicator words that provide
clues in identifying premises and conclusion. Some typical conclusion indicators are:
Therefore, wherefore, accordingly, we may conclude, entails that, hence, thus, consequently, we
may infer, it must be that, whence, so, it follows that, implies that, as a result
Whenever a statement follows one of these indicators, it can usually be identified as the conclusion. By
process of elimination the other statements in the argument are the premises.
Example: Corporate raiders leave their target corporation with a heavy debt burden and no increase in productive capacity.
Consequently, corporate raiders are bad for the business community.
The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Corporate raiders are bad for the business community,’’ and the
premise is ‘‘Corporate raiders leave their target corporation with a heavy debt burden and no increase in
productive capacity.’’
If an argument does not contain a conclusion indicator, it may contain a premise indicator. Some typical
premise indicators are:
Since, as indicated by, because, for, in that, may be inferred from, as, given that, seeing that, for the
reason that, inasmuch as, owing to
Any statement following one of these indicators can usually be identified as a premise.
Example: Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs, since the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development
of the fetus.
The premise of this argument is ‘‘the use of these drugs can jeopardize the development of the fetus,’’
and the conclusion is ‘‘Expectant mothers should never use recreational drugs.’’
One premise indicator not included in the above list is ‘‘for this reason.’’ This indicator is special in that
it comes immediately after the premise that it indicates. ‘‘For this reason’’ (except when followed by a
colon) means for the reason (premise) that was just given. In other words, the premise is the statement
that occurs immediately before ‘‘for this reason.’’ One should be careful not to confuse ‘‘for this reason’’
with ‘‘for the reason that.’’
Sometimes a single indicator can be used to identify more than one premise. Consider the following
argument:
The development of high-temperature superconducting materials is technologically justified, for such materials will allow
electricity to be transmitted without loss over great distances, and they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.
The premise indicator ‘‘for’’ goes with both ‘‘such materials will allow electricity to be transmitted
without loss over great distances’’ and ‘‘they will pave the way for trains that levitate magnetically.’’
These are the premises. By process of elimination, ‘‘the development of high-temperature
superconducting materials is technologically justified’’ is the conclusion.
Sometimes an argument contains no indicators. When this occurs, the reader/listener must ask himself or
herself such questions as: What single statement is claimed (implicitly) to follow from the others? What is
the arguer trying to prove? What is the main point in the passage? The answers to these questions should
point to the conclusion.
Example: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead. Not only does the national defense depend
upon it, but the program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs. Furthermore, at current funding levels
the program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
The conclusion of this argument is the first statement, and all of the other statements are premises. The
argument illustrates the pattern found in most arguments that lack indicator words: the intended
conclusion is stated first, and the remaining statements are then offered in support of this first statement.
When the argument is restructured according to logical principles, however, the conclusion is always
listed after the premises:
P1: The national defense is dependent upon the space program.
P2: The space program will more than pay for itself in terms of technological spinoffs.
P3: At current funding levels the space program cannot fulfill its anticipated potential.
C: The space program deserves increased expenditures in the years ahead.
When restructuring arguments such as this, one should remain as close as possible to the original version,
while at the same time attending to the requirement that premises and conclusion be complete sentences
that are meaningful in the order in which they are listed. Note that the first two premises are included
within the scope of a single sentence in the original argument. For the purposes of this chapter, compound
arrangements of statements in which the various components are all claimed to be true will be considered
as separate statements.
Passages that contain arguments sometimes contain statements that are neither premises nor conclusion.
Only statements that are actually intended to support the conclusion should be included in the list of
premises. If a statement has nothing to do with the conclusion or, for example, simply makes a passing
comment, it should not be included within the context of the argument.
Example: Socialized medicine is not recommended because it would result in a reduction in the overall quality of medical
care available to the average citizen. In addition, it might very well bankrupt the federal treasury. This is the whole case against
socialized medicine in a nutshell.
The conclusion of this argument is ‘‘Socialized medicine is not recommended,’’ and the two statements
following the word ‘‘because’’ are the premises. The last statement makes only a passing comment about
the argument itself and is therefore neither a premise nor a conclusion.
Closely related to the concepts of argument and statement are those of inference and proposition. An
inference, in the technical sense of the term, is the reasoning process expressed by an argument. As we
will see in the next section, inferences may be expressed not only through arguments but through
conditional statements as well.
In the loose sense of the term, ‘‘inference’’ is used interchangeably with ‘‘argument.’’ Analogously, a
proposition, in the technical sense, is the meaning or information content of a statement. For the purposes
of this book, however, ‘‘proposition’’ and ‘‘statement’’ are used interchangeably.

Note on the History of Logic

The person who is generally credited as being the father of logic is the ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle (384–322 B.C.). Aristotle’s predecessors had been interested in the art of constructing
persuasive arguments and in techniques for refuting the arguments of others, but it was Aristotle who first
devised systematic criteria for analyzing and evaluating arguments. Aristotle’s logic is called syllogistic
logic. The fundamental elements in this logic are terms, and arguments are evaluated as good or bad
depending on how the terms are arranged in the argument. In addition to his development of syllogistic
logic, Aristotle cataloged a number of informal fallacies, a topic treated in Chapter 3 of this text.
After Aristotle’s death, another Greek philosopher, Chrysippus (279–206 B.C.), one of the founders of the
Stoic school, developed a logic in which the fundamental elements were whole propositions. Chrysippus
treated every proposition as either true or false and developed rules for determining the truth or falsity of
compound propositions from the truth or falsity of their components. In the course of doing so, he laid the
foundation for the truth functional interpretation of the logical connectives presented in Chapter 6 of this
text and introduced the notion of natural deduction, treated in Chapter 7.
For thirteen hundred years after the death of Chrysippus, relatively little creative work was done in logic.
The physician Galen (A.D. 129–ca. 199) developed the theory of the compound categorical syllogism, but
for the most part philosophers confined themselves to writing commentaries on the works of Aristotle and
Chrysippus. Boethius (ca. 480–524) is a noteworthy example.
The first major logician of the Middle Ages was Peter Abelard (1079–1142). Abelard reconstructed and
refined the logic of Aristotle and Chrysippus as communicated by Boethius, and he originated a theory of
universals that traced the universal character of general terms to concepts in the mind rather than to
‘‘natures’’ existing outside the mind, as Aristotle had held. In addition, Abelard distinguished arguments
that are valid because of their form from those that are valid because of their content, but he held that only
formal validity is the ‘‘perfect’’ or conclusive variety. The present text follows Abelard on this point.
After Abelard, the study of logic during the Middle Ages blossomed and flourished through the work of
numerous philosophers. It attained its final expression in the writings of the Oxford philosopher William
of Occam (ca. 1285–1349). Occam devoted much of his attention to modal logic, a kind of logic that
involves such notions as possibility, necessity, belief, and doubt. He also conducted an exhaustive study
of forms of valid and invalid syllogisms and contributed to the development of the concept of a
metalanguage—that is, a higher-level language used to discuss linguistic entities such as words, terms,
propositions, and so on.
Toward the middle of the fifteenth century, a reaction set in against the logic of the Middle Ages.
Rhetoric largely displaced logic as the primary focus of attention; the logic of Chrysippus, which had
already begun to lose its unique identity in the Middle Ages, was ignored altogether, and the logic of
Aristotle was studied only in highly simplistic presentations. A reawakening did not occur until two
hundred years later through the work of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716).
Leibniz, a genius in numerous fields, attempted to develop a symbolic language or ‘‘calculus’’ that could
be used to settle all forms of disputes, whether in theology, philosophy, or international relations. As a
result of this work, Leibniz is sometimes credited with being the father of symbolic logic. Leibniz’s
efforts to symbolize logic were carried into the nineteenth century by Bernard Bolzano (1781–1848).
With the arrival of the middle of the nineteenth century, logic commenced an extremely rapid period of
development that has continued to this day. Work in symbolic logic was done by a number of
philosophers and mathematicians, including Augustus DeMorgan (1806–1871), George Boole (1815–
1864), William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882), and John Venn (1834–1923), some of whom are popularly
known today by the logical theorems and techniques that bear their names. At the same time, a revival in
inductive logic was initiated by the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), whose methods of
induction are presented in Chapter 9 of this text.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the foundations of modern mathematical logic were laid by
Gottlob Frege (1848–1925). His Begriffsschrift sets forth the theory of quantification presented in Chapter
8 of this text. Frege’s work was continued into the twentieth century by Alfred North Whitehead (1861–
1947) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), whose monumental Principia Mathematica attempted to reduce
the whole of pure mathematics to logic. The Principia is the source of much of the symbolism
During the twentieth century, much of the work in logic has focused on the formalization of logical
systems and on questions dealing with the completeness and consistency of such systems. A now-famous
theorem proved by Kurt Goedel (1906–1978) states that in any formal system adequate for number theory
there exists an undecidable formula—that is, a formula such that neither it nor its negation is derivable
from the axioms of the system. Other developments include multivalued logics and the formalization of
modal logic. Most recently, logic has made a major contribution to technology by providing the
conceptual foundation for the electronic circuitry of digital computers.