STUDY GUIDE FOR THE SPECIAL ACCREDITATION EXAM

LOGIC AND ARGUMENTATION

Key 510

Definition of Logic
Logic is the science of the laws and forms of thought. It is not, of course, about
the causal or temporal laws but those that regulate the activities of the subject and that are
susceptible to generating true or false relationships. What are these activities if not
Is it already just pure language? A system of propositions contains two types of structures: the
internal relationships between the terms contained in the proposition and the external relationships between
the propositions themselves. If we agree to call 'operations' the intellectual activities that
such relationships compose or decompose, it can then be considered that the structures
Logics express the operations of thought. Logic would be like this, in a second
approximation, the formal theory of the operations of thought. [PIAGET: 30]

Logical Principle
The fundamental requirement of the activity of thinking is, in effect, the coherence between the elements.
of thought. Furthermore, thoughts must necessarily derive from other thoughts.
thoughts. The question now is to find out if this coherence and this derivation obeys some
principle or to some law to which every thought must submit, whatever it may be.
content. In other words, it is about knowing whether there is any principle or any law that governs the
logical relationships that ensure the validity of our reasoning. If these laws exist,
we must know what they are and how reason finds them through simple reflection,
extracting them from within itself and not from experience. All our reasoning is based on
effect on certain logical principles or axioms that have been considered true
laws of thought.

Principle of Identity. This principle, expressed with the formula A is A, means that a
A concept or idea is equal to itself and does not change at the moment it is thought. Taken in a
In its literal sense, the word identity indicates that a thing is always the same, however the
different names that are applied, or despite the different circumstances in which they
we consider. If we say: 'Juan is good' and at the very moment we attribute the quality
of "good", the subject "Juan" will change, the attribute would no longer correspond to the first subject but to the
second.

But we must point out that the principle of identity under the formula A is A would be
completely unproductive if the two related terms of the judgement – the subject and the predicate –
they would express the same thing, where the predicate repeats what the subject says. It would be about, in such
case, of a trial devoid of all meaning, that is to say, it would be a tautological trial. Thus,
when we say 'a house is a house', 'a plant is a plant', we express a judgment
 2

tautological in that, by being so, it does not provide us with any new knowledge. However, there are cases
in which judgments are formulated in which the subject and the predicate are expressed by terms
absolutely identical and are not, despite this, tautological judgments. When we say 'the
youth is youth”, with the first term we want to signify the youthful age and with the
according to the inherent characters of that age. If we say 'misery is misery', the subject
it refers to the real fact of misery, and with the predicate, it alludes to all the consequences that
they derive from her.

Principle of Non-Contradiction. This principle establishes that if there are two judgments, of which one
one affirms and the other denies the same thing, it is not possible for both to be true at the same time. If
we have the judgments AesByAno is B, it is impossible for both to be true at the same time. In
Change, if one of them is true, the other is necessarily false. Aristotle has considered
this principle as the most certain of all because the truth of the other principles refers to it
directly or indirectly to the principle of [non] contradiction.

Principle of Excluded Middle. This principle states that when we have two judgments
contradictory, such as AesByAno is B, there is no third possibility, a third does not exist
way of being, because one of these judgments must necessarily be true, since the two
they cannot be false at the same time. We must choose between yes and no. Let's suppose these two
contradictory judgments: "gold is a metal", "gold is not a metal". One of them is
necessarily true, because both cannot be denied at the same time.

According to this principle, when there are two contradictory judgments, one of them is true if
we have recognized that the other is false, excluding any possibility of a third judgment or a
third mode of being. Hence the name 'excluded third' given to this principle. But it is necessary to
to warn that this principle does not establish which of the judgments is true and which is false, but rather that
it simply indicates that two contradictory judgments cannot be false simultaneously.
[FINGERMANN: 25-28]

Argument
An argument is the expression of a reasoning, that is, a piece of discourse, written or spoken,
composed of two or more sentences that perform an informative or directive function, in the
context and what they are such that some of them, the so-called premises, intend to provide foundations
of proof, or at least favorable elements of judgment, to accept the truth, or the likelihood,
on another, the so-called conclusion.

The function of arguments consists in attempting to rationally base what is not given as a fact.
(the conclusion of an argument) in what is given as fact (the premises of the argument), in a
context: “the non-obvious” in “the obvious”, the non-perceptible –or the non-perceived– in the perceived, the non
proven in the proven, the uncertain in the most certain, etc. Thus, arguments tend to be
that which seeks to support or rationally uphold what is taken as not given (the conclusion)
in what is taken as given (the premises), in a context. [RAMOS: 27-28]
 3

Fallacy
A fallacy, put simply, is a bad argument because the ideas that it aims to convey
justifying oneself with him, in reality lacks support (although it may seem otherwise). A fallacy is a
incorrect argument, with one exception: it presents itself as psychologically persuasive, and the
explanation of why [it is persuasive], despite its logical incorrectness, must be sought in
some cases in its expressive function intended to provoke attitudes that may possibly incline towards
the acceptance, instead of providing reasons” (Copi). Persuasion is based on moving affections, desires
dissatisfied, inexplicable identifications, collective anxieties, etc., through discourse;
consists, according to Copi's words, in provoking us to attitudes of acceptance without mediation
reasons for employing 'psychological tricks'. [HERRERA and TORRES: 9, 17]

Division of reasoning: deductive and inductive

Argumentation is essentially divided into two genres, corresponding to the ways, or paths,
according to which it manifests the truth. The first way is this: our mind moves starting
of the first universal principles known immediately by intelligence and infers
a conclusion. Our mind moves, then in the intelligible plane and manifests the truth
from a proposition, as it is contained in a universal truth from which it is inferred.

Example: Everything that subsists immaterially is indestructible.

the human soul subsists immaterially;
then the human soul is indestructible.

This reasoning is a deductive argument.

Another way for the truth to manifest itself to us is when the mind moves from the data of the
senses and of the facts of experience, primary source of knowledge, and which constitutes in
the order of the individual or of the singular, to reach the plane of the intelligible and the universal. In
in this case the mind moves from the sensible plane to the intelligible plane and manifests the truth of a
proposition in so far as it is the universal statement whose parts are the data or facts
singular.

Example: This portion of water boils at 100°C

This other portion too...
This third portion also...
This fourth...
Then the water boils at 100°C

This reasoning is an inductive argument or induction.

Deduction is based on universal principles; the function of induction is precisely to achieve the
obtaining such principles. The reduction descends from the whole to the parts, from the genus to the
species; the induction from the parts to the whole, from the species to the genus.
 4

Induction can be defined as follows: induction is an argumentation in which

from sufficiently enumerated data or singular facts, the mind infers a universal truth.
We will briefly explain this definition [García: 153, 192]:
a) Enumeration of the singulars is required, that is, observation of the singulars
through analysis.
This observation is made by experience.
c) Once the observation is made, understanding can reach a common note in the singularities.
to all of them: this note can be preached universally.
d) The enumeration of the singulars must be sufficient (complete or incomplete)

Example: Copper is a conductor of electricity.

Gold, silver, iron, zinc... also.
Then metal (all metal) is a conductor of electricity.

Syllogism
The syllogism is an argumentation in which, from an antecedent that unites two terms
with a third party, a consequent is inferred that connects those two terms to each other. Aristotle
It defines: A discourse in which given certain things (antecedent) it necessarily results.
another (consequential), due to being given.

The three terms of the propositions are called: Major (T), minor (t), and middle (M).
The following table will clearly show us the structure of the syllogism. [García: 159-162]

M T
All men are mortal (Major premise)
ANTECEDE
t M
Pedro is a man (Minor premise)

t T
CONSEQUENT Then Peter is mortal (Conclusion)

Proposition
It is called propositional meaning of a declarative sentence, understood as an entity.
abstract. It is also said that a sentence expresses the proposition that constitutes its meaning.
Thus,theSpanishsentence'Estálloviendo'expressesthesamepropositionastheEnglishsentence'Itisraining';
Similarly, it is sometimes said that the two Spanish sentences 'Juan loves María' and 'María is
"loved by Juan" express the same proposition. The propositions have been considered more
stable as sentences concerning truth values. When a sentence changes its truth
 5

According to the context, it does not happen that any proposition is altered in the same way, but rather
that sentence in question expresses different propositions in different contexts. [ORAYEN: 28]

Truth table
A table of truths: a decision procedure for the validity of logical formulas
propositional. A formula is valid if and only if it is satisfied or verified by all the
possible assignments of truth values (T or F) to their propositions. [MOSTERÍNy TORRETI, 535]

A proposition is a statement that is either true (T) or false (F), but not both. The propositions
will be denoted by P, Q, R,… The logical connectives are operations by which...
propositions are combined (or modified) to form new propositions. The five
connectives are defined as follows [PRESTON YLOVAGLIA: 1-2]:

The conjunction of P and Q, written "P y Q", is true only when both P and Q are true;
in any other case it is false. It is symbolized as "P". Q.

The disjunction of P with Q, written as 'P or Q', is true whenever at least one of them is true.
be true. It is symbolized as 'P Q.

The negation of P is true when P is false, and false when P is true. It is symbolized as '¬P'.

The conditional PQ (read as 'if P then Q') is defined to be true in all cases.
except when P is true and Q is false. According to the above, assert that P Qes
True merely means that it is not the case that P is true and Q is false. We call P
the antecedent and the consequent of the conditional.

Biconditional P Q (reads as Psi and only if Q) is defined to be true whenever P or Q are.

both true or both false; that is, when PyQt have the same truth value.

With the aid of truth tables, we can display the truth conditions of the connectives:

P not P P Q P Q P P Q P Q
V F V V V V V V
F V V F F V F F
F V F V V F
F F F F V V

We can now determine the conditions under which complex statements are true.
formed from simpler ones through defined schemes. For example, the
proposition 'If the species has not moved forward, then it does not matter how fast it has
"Andado" is false only in the case where its antecedent is true and its consequent is false.
false, and this in turn will happen when "The species has moved forward" is false and
It matters how fast the species has moved, true. All of this can be observed better at
 6

through the construction of the following truth table in which the first of the two statements
previously mentioned is represented with Py the second with Q.

Q not P ¬Q not P Not Q

V V F F V
V F F V V
F V V F F
F F V V V

Note that the simple form ¬P ¬Qes is susceptible to misinterpretation if it is considered the
negation of P ¬Q. These problems could be avoided through the use of parentheses.
Hello, we will establish, from now on, a convention that has the virtue of avoiding confusions to
which leads to a careless use of parentheses. Thus, in [(P Q) (R S)], the order of the
parenthesis reveals that it is a disjunction, one of whose members is (P and the
other,(R That is, the disjunction is the main connective here. If someone claimed that the
the main connective is the conjunction, to know that I was wrong it would be enough to rewrite it
formula according to your idea, that is, placing the conjunction as the last connective.
Then it would result in a different formula, since it would start by linking PyQ through the
conditional, after this I would add through the disjunction, obtaining (P Q) R; y,
finally, by adding the conjunction withS, I would get [(P Q) R] S, it's not what we had
Originally. It is important to know how to locate the main connective of a propositional form.
for the argument analysis techniques that we will see next.

Let us now return to the analysis of the truth conditions of a compound statement based on
others, through logical connectives. This is achieved by constructing truth tables.
Let us consider the statement 'Plato wrote The Laws or wrote The Timaeus or was in Syracuse.'
Let's represent it first through the propositional form [(P Q) R], in whereQ
it symbolizes the proposition 'Plato wrote The Timaeus', etc., to now create its truth table is
It is necessary to take into account all possible assignments of truth values to the letters P, Q, and
R; that is to say, we must consider eight cases, each of which will be outlined by
a line of the table. Let’s then start the development of this by placing at its end
left the following columns:
P Q R
V V V
V V F
V F V
V F F
F V V
F V F
F F V
F F F

We know from the arrangement of the parentheses in the previous form that, in its construction, starting from
of the atomic formulas that compose it, the disjunction was primarily used, and later the
 7

conjunction. That is the order in which we must fill in the table. Therefore, we must write it,
continuation of the previous ones, the next column:

P Q R P Q
V V V V
V V F V
V F V V
V F F V
F V V V
F V F V
F F V F
F F F F

for filling out which only the columns corresponding to Py and Q should be taken into account.
Finally, let's add the column that contains the values of the complete form based on
those assigned to P, Q, and R.

P Q R (P Q) R
V V V V V V
V V F V F F
V F V V V V
V F F V F F
F V V V V V
F V F V F F
F F V F F V
F F F F F F

Let's see with a simple propositional form how the writing of the tables can be abbreviated.
truth. Instead of the table that we previously created corresponding to the form ¬P ¬Q
let's simply write:
¬ P ¬ Q
F V V F V
F V V V F
V F F F V
V F V V F

Now the values corresponding to the negation of P are found under the respective sign, and in
the column under the conditional symbol contains the values in full form.
et al: 33-37
 8

References
1) FERNÁNDEZ, M., et al, Elementary Logic, Mexico: UAM, 1996.
FINGERMANN, G., logic and theory of knowledge, Mexico: El Ateneo, 1983.
Formal Logic for Beginners
HERRERA, A., TORRES, J.A., Fallacies, 2nd ed., Mexico: Torres Associates, 2007.
MOSTERÍN, J. and TORRETI, R., Dictionary of Logic and Philosophy of Science, Madrid: Alianza, 2002.
6) ORAYEN, R., Logic, meaning and ontology, Mexico: UNAM, 1989.
7) PIAGET, J., Essay on operational logic, Buenos Aires: Ed. Guadalupe, 1977.
Modern analytic geometry
9) RAMOS, P., "Creation of arguments or reasoning", in A. Campirán, The communicated reason II,
Mexico: Torres Asociados, 2003.

Learning activities
Elaborate in Word the following:
1. Un cuadro sinóptico con las definiciones delógica,argumento,falacia,proposiciónysilogismo.
A synoptic chart defining and exemplifying the three logical principles.
3. Un cuadro sinóptico en el que defina y ejemplifique la deducción y la inducción.
4. A "form" with the truth table and the names of the logical connectives. Please submit it.
5. The truth table of the following propositional forms. Identify and highlight the connective.
main logic.
not P ¬Q
b) (P Q) not P
c)P (Q ¬R)
d) ¬[P ¬(Q R)]
e) [P (Q R)] [(P Q) (P ]