EGERTON UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING

THE E-CAMPUS

E-LEARNING COURSE

PHIL 101: INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

By

Gerishon Kuria Njuguna

Gerishon.njuguna@egerton.ac.ke

+254721467445

JUNE 2020

__________________________________________________________
 MAIN INFORMATION PAGE

COURSE PRELIMINARIES

PHIL 101: INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC

Is this course for you?

This course has been designed for all first year undergraduate students
of Egerton University pursuing a career in their respective disciplines.In
this course, you will learn the principles of correct reasoning and their
application. This will help the students to understand, analyze, interrogate
and even critique the subject matter in various units they are going to
undertake during their training.This course is part of the pre -requisites forall
undergraduate students of Egerton University.

You are expected to complete the course in 45 hours within a period of one
semester. There are no pre-requisites for youto study this course.

Introduction to the course

This course draws deals with the basic introduction to logic. This involves
creation of an understanding of basic concepts of logic. Understanding the
basic concepts in logic forms the foundation in understanding discipline.
You will benefit from an overall understanding and appreciation of simple
apprehensions and universal as used in logic. The course will expound on
the meaning of definition, the different functions of definitions, nature of
definitions, techniques for formulating connotative definitions and kinds and
purposes of definition.

A great effort has been made to bring out explanationof categorical

propositions, syllogisms and their fallacies and finally informal fallacies.

Course Content
There are SEVEN (7) topics in this course, namely:

Topic One: Introduction

Topic Two: Basic Concepts in Logic

Topic Three: Simple Apprehension and Universals

Topic Four: The Definition

Topic Five: Categorical Propositions

Topic Six: Syllogisms and their Fallacies

Topic Seven: Informal Fallacies

Course Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion of this course, you should be able to:

i. Define logic and its basic concepts

ii. Explain what simple apprehension and universal are.

iii. Define the meaning of definition, techniques of formulating definitions

and the kinds and purposes of definition

iv. Explain categorical propositions

v. Explain syllogisms and their fallacies.

vi. Explain informal fallacies.

Course Study Skills

As an adult learner your approach to learning will be different to that

from your school days: you will choose what you want to study, you
will have professional and/or personal motivation for doing so and you will
most likely be fitting your study activities around other professional or
domestic responsibilities.

Essentially you will be taking control of your learning environment. As

a consequence, you will need to consider performance issues related to
time management, goal setting, stress management, etc. Perhaps you
will also need to reacquaint yourself in areas such as essay planning,
coping with exams and using the web as a learning resource.

Your most significant considerations will be time and space, that is, the
time you dedicate to your learning and the environment in which you
engage in that learning.

We recommend that you take time now - before starting your self-study - to

familiarize yourself with these issues. There are a number of excellent

resources on the web. A few suggested links are:

http://www.how-to-study.com/

The "How to study” web site is dedicated to study skills resources.

You will find links to study preparation (a list of nine essentials for a good
study place), taking notes, strategies for reading text books, using reference
sources, test anxiety.

http://www.ucc.vt.edu/stdysk/stdyhlp.html

This is the web site of the Virginia Tech, Division of Student Affairs. You will

find links to time scheduling (including a "where does time go?” link), a study
skill checklist, basic concentration techniques, control of the study
environment, note taking, how to read essays for analysis, and memory skills
("remembering”).

http://www.howtostudy.org/resources.php
This is another "How to study” web site with useful links to time
management, efficient reading, questioning/listening/observing skills, getting
the most out of doing ("hands-on” learning), memory building, tips for
staying motivated, developing a learning plan.

Need Help?

This course was developed in April 2020 by Dr. Fr. GerishonKuria, Phone:

+254721467445; Email: gerishon.njuguna@egerton.ac.ke. Dr. Fr. Kuria

is a Lecturer of Philosophy in theDepartment of Philosophy, History and
Religion.

This session, the instructor for this course isDr. Fr. Kuria. My

office is located in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences block B.You may
consult me during the normal working hours between Monday and Friday or
contact me through: Phone: +254721467445; Email:
gerishon.njuguna@egerton.ac.keOffice: Egerton University, Njoro,

For technical support e.g.lostpasswords, broken links etc. please contact

tech-support via e-mail elearning@egerton.ac.ke. You can also reach learner
support through elearnersupport@egerton.ac.ke.

Assignments/Activities

Assignments/Activities are provided at the end of each topic. Some

assignments/activities will require submission while others will be

selfassessments that do not require submission. Ensure you carefully check

which assignment require submission and those that do not.

Course Learning Requirements

• 2 CATs (30%)

• Final Examination (70% of total score)

Self-assessment

Self-assessments are provided in order to aid your understanding of the

topic and course content. While they may not be graded, you are strongly

advised to attempt them whenever they are available in a topic.

TOPIC ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Welcome to topic one. This topic is aimed at introducing you to the meaning
of logic and its importance. You will also learn the historical sketch of logic.

Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. Define logic and philosophy

ii. Explain the historical development of logic

Topic Content
1.1 Logic and Its Importance
Logic is a branch of philosophy that studies reasoning. It deals with the
operations of right reasoning. It studies principles and rules of reasoning with
the aim of distinguishing between correct and incorrect; good or bad
reasoning. The basic aim of logic is to arrive at truth and subsequently
understand reality.
Logic is critical, and this it achieves through use of critical thinking. Every
logical judgement or, generally any opinion, should be justified by some
acceptable facts or evidence.

Logic can be seen as both the art and science of correct thinking. As a
science it is concerned with principles and laws of correct thinking. It
develops a system of philosophical analysis and thinking. As an art, it is
concerned with application of the principles of correct thinking or reasoning.
It seeks to create a stable habit by which to carry out the act of reasoning in
an orderly, easy and errorless way. It equips and prepares human beings for
certain actions- actions that are certain.

Correct or right thinking (reasoning) can be considered from two aspects:

1. The aspect of form

From the aspect of form, logic is concerned with the sequence of claims or
judgements. It is concerned with the form or structure of good/correct
reasoning without necessarily scrutinizing the content or matterof the
reasoning. For example,
If human beings have two heads and Oriare is a human being, then
Oriare must have two heads

This aspect constitutes the subject of formal logic. This aspect alone is not
sufficient to guarantee good reasoning.

2. The aspect of matter

Here logic is concerned with the matter of reasoning, that is, the content of
reasoning. It deals with whether the claims of reasoning(propositions used in
reasoning) are in agreement with facts or reality. In this aspect, logic must
also concern itself with the truth-values (truth or falsity) of the judgements
(propositions) which are employed in reasoning. This aspect constitutes the
aspect of material logic.
Taken together, the two aspects help in formulation of good reasoning. They
bring us to the various mental acts. To determine the truth-value of a
proposition, we need to understand the meaning of the terms used. Thus we
form concepts of realities to which these terms refer. This is the first act of
the mind, which is conception or simple apprehension.

Once we have grasped the meaning of the terms then we can make
judgmentie make some claim about what is already apprehended. The
judgment is expressed in or is a verbal expression called a proposition. In
judgment we affirm or deny that something is the case. The act of judgment
is the second act of the mind.

The third act of the mind is called inference. This is the form of reasoning by
which the mind moves from some given claims/judgement to another related
claim/judgement. This act of the mind comprehends a relationship between
various realities as expressed in various propositions. For example, on seeing
dark clouds in the sky, I conclude that it is soon going to rain. The judgement
that the sky has dark clouds results from direct observation, while the
judgement that it would soon rain is derived from the fact that sky has dark
clouds.

Therefore, logic as an act o analysis presupposes simple apprehensions,

judgements as expressed in propositions, and finally reasoning.

1.2 Interest in Logic

Interest in logic has along history. This is due to two main reasons. First, as
astudy of critical reasoning, logic raises a theoretical interest. The study of
logic as knowledge in itself is intellectually rewarding. The knowledge that
logical principles have close relations with basic philosophical problems as
well as mathematical is worth it itself. It therefore assists in dealing with the
basic philosophical problems.

Secondly, the study of logic has a practical utility. The mastery of logical
principles enables one to understand and consequently avoid most mistakes
in reasoning. It therefore enables one to think or reason correctly. Correct
thinking is more likely to lead to truth, and truth is preferable to error.

It is possibly true that reason is not the only way to arrive at truth. But
through reasoning one arrives at a justifiable truth; truth that one can defend
and explain. Truth has both theoretical and practical value. Truth enables
one to plan and execute the plan wisely, hence one attains one’s goal in life.

Logic also enables one to avoid jumping to unjustified conclusions or

assertions that may be due to some strong emotions, confusion due to
careless use of language, and unintelligibility due to ambiguity or vagueness.
Consequently, it helps in reducing conflicts that may result from ambiguous
use of language.

The mastery and application of logical principles is likely to enable one to

effectively communicate. This entails effective acquisition and dissemination
of knowledge. Logic therefore becomes vital to the study of other disciplines.

As a branch of philosophy, logic deals with general questions that relate to

the nature of correct and incorrect reasoning. In this quest, logic is a
reflective study that does not require empirical approach to the verification
of its claims.

1.3 Philosophy
Philosophy is a free inquiry into the nature of reality. I t does not involve
presuppositions. Being critical, philosophy is a careful, insightful and a
sustained inquiry. It is contemplative and a sustained discernment into the
nature or reality (wherever that is available to the human intellect).
Philosophy is a reflective discipline. It is a purposeful or intentional inquiry
and it is also reflective. I inquires into its own meaning and methodologies. It
aims at not only understanding nature but also human beings’ prospects
within nature.

Being a critical and contemplative inquiry, philosophy is

systematic(scientific). It is an organized mode of inquiry with a methodology
guided by certain principles.

Traditionally, philosophy has the following branches: Metaphysics,

Epistemology, Ethics and logic. All these branches constitute various
attempts to understand the nature of reality and the prospects of human
beings within reality.

Philosophy therefore has to main roles’

1. Factual role- to understand reality in general ( understand the way

things are)
2. Normative role- the search for the prospects of human beings within
reality. This role presupposes the first one and it entails the search
for the best possibilities to the prevailing circumstance of human
existence. This involves the prudent application of knowledge of
reality which is presupposed by the factual role in order to improve
the conditions of human existence.

1.4 Historical Sketch of Logic

The formal study of logic is believed to have begun with Aristotle in the 4 th
BC. Aristotle is considered to have an important contribution to logic in terms
of syllogisms. His works and contribution to logic were admired by a number
of thinkers from medieval to modern times. These thinkers regarded the
theory of syllogism as the central and most important part of logic. For
example, Immanuel Kant, as late as 18thCentury AD, believed that the
Aristotelian system of logic was a complete science- was fully developed and
that there were no new principles that could be discovered. Later on the
stoics developed the Aristotelian logic by introducing some elements of
propositional logic.

In the 19th Century AD, the Irish logician, George Boole developed logic
further in the area of truth functions. Truth functionality is part of what
became to be known as modern formal logic. Boole also introduced a new
interpretation of universal categorical propositions which solved a problem
that originally could not be solved by Aristotelian interpretation. The new
interpretation is called the hypothetical interpretation of the universal
categorical propositions. This interpretation applies to universal categorical
propositions when they make claims about physically non-existent realities.

In the 20th Century AD, there were further developments in logic. The
German mathematician and philosopher GottlobFrede(1848-1925)
introduced the theory of quantification in logic. This was a further
development of the theory of syllogism. Charles Sanders Peirce(1839-1914) ,
an American philosopher, also made pioneering investigations into the logic
of relations and truth functions, and independently discovered the
quantifiers. The Italian mathematician, GuiseppePeano (1958-1932) also
made some contributions in the area of set theory.

Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Bertrand Arthur William Russel

(1872-1970), both English mathematicians and philosophers, systematized
the new developments in logic. They also tried to show that laws of pure
mathematics are derivable from the laws of logic. Russel also introduced
some notation into symbolic logic.

The development of truth- functional and quantification logic resulted to

what is called modern logic. Modern logic differs from Aristotelian logic in
two ways;
 1. It is more general and hence deals with more forms of reasoning that
the Aristotelian logic.
2. It employs more symbols and its method is closer to mathematical
method hence the reason why some people refer to it as
mathematical logic.

Topic Summary

In this topic you learned the meaning of logic and philosophy and the
historical development of logic.

In summary;

● Logic studies principles and rules of reasoning with the aim of

distinguishing between correct and incorrect; good or bad reasoning.
● Logic can be seen as both the art and science of correct thinking. As a
science it is concerned with principles and laws of correct thinking As
an art, it is concerned with application of the principles of correct
thinking or reasoning.
● Correct or right thinking (reasoning) can be considered from two
aspects:aspect of formand aspect of matter.
● Interest in logic is because as a study of critical reasoning, logic raises
a theoretical interest. The study of logic as knowledge in itself is
intellectually rewarding. Secondly, the study of logic has a practical
utility. The mastery of logical principles enables one to understand and
consequently avoid most mistakes in reasoning.
● Philosophy is a free inquiry into the nature of reality. It does not
involve presuppositions, it is a careful, insightful and a sustained
inquiry, it is contemplative and a sustained discernment into the
nature or reality (wherever that is available to the human intellect), it
is a reflective discipline, It is a purposeful or intentional inquiry and it is
also reflective.
● The two main roles of Philosophy are; Factual role- to understand
reality in general (understand the way things are) and normative role-
the search for the prospects of human beings within reality.
● The historical development of logic may be summarized as follows;

Name Period Contribution

Aristotle 4th BC syllogisms.

Irish logician, George 19th Century AD ● Truth functions.

Boole ● Interpretation of
the universal
categorical
propositions

German 20th Century AD Theory of quantification

mathematician and
(1848-1925)
philosopher
GottlobFrede

An American (1839-1914) , ● logic of relations

philosopher, Charles and truth
Sanders Peirce functions
● Discovered the
quantifiers

Italian mathematician, (1958-1932) ● set theory

GuiseppePeano

English (1861-1947) and ● Systematized the

mathematicians and (1872-1970) new
philosophers, Alfred developments in
North Whitehead and logic.
Bertrand Arthur ● Tried to show that
William Russel, laws of pure
mathematics are
 derivable from the
laws of logic.
● Russel introduced
some notation
into symbolic
logic.

Further Reading

Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 1-5.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic Activity

Describe logic as a science and an art.

Topic Assignment (for self assessment)

1. Define logic and discuss its importance.

2. Make a historical sketch of logic.

 TOPIC TWO: BASIC CONCEPTS IN LOGIC

Introduction

Welcome to topic two. This topic is aimed at introducing you to basic

concepts in logic

Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. Define the basic terms in logic

ii. Explain the different types of propositions

iii. Differentiate between deductive argument and inductive arguments

Topic Content
2.1 Argument
An argument is a set of propositions in which the truth of one of the
propositions is claimed to be established on the basis of the truth of the
other propositions either necessarily or by some probability. The one whose
truth is asserted on the basis of of the truth of the others is called conclusion
while the one/ones whose truth provide the basis for the truth of the
conclusion is/are called premise/premises. An argument therefore, can be
defined as a set of premise(s) and a conclusion. An argument must have at
least two propositions. For example,
1. Since we are in the month of December, next month must be
January. (one premise and one conclusion)
 2. All those people who drink alcohol get drunk. Those who are drunk
go to sleep. Those who are asleep commit no sin. Those who
commit no sin go to heaven. Therefore, those who drink alcohol go
to heaven.(four premises and one conclusion)

Note: In an argument the conclusion need not be stated last. It can as well
be stated first or within the premises. For example

1. Next month must be January since we are in the month of December.

( Conclusion stated first)
2. Kenyans are generally inhospitable, and you are generally inhospitable
since you are Kenyans. (Conclusion within the premises).

2.1.1 Kinds of Arguments

There are two kinds of arguments.

A) Deductive argument

A deductive argument is one in which there is a claim that if the truth of its
premises is granted, then its conclusion is also true as a matter of logical
necessity. In a good deductive argument, the truth/meaning of the premises
taken together implies nothing else but the truth/meaning of its conclusion.
For example,

A living thing must die

Human beings are living things
Therefore, human beings must die.

This argument can be expressed as one compound proposition as follows; “ if

any living thing must die and human beings are living things, then human
beings must die”.

In a bad deductive argument, the truth of the conclusion does not follow
from the truth of the premises. The argument is such that even if the truth of
the premises is granted, the truth of its conclusion must not be inferred
necessarily. That is the meaning of its premises put together is not the same
as the meaning expressed in its conclusion. For example,

All animals breathe

All human beings breathe
Therefore, all human beings are animals.

It can be seen from the above example that even if the premises were true,
the conclusion is not true and can not be claimed to be true. The premises of
this argument are not necessarily related to the conclusion. Due to the lack
of necessary relationship between the premises and the conclusion,, one can
comfortably accept the truth of the premises and deny the truth of the
conclusion.

In any deductive argument the claim that the truth of the conclusion follows
necessarily from that of the premises is either justifiable or not. When the
claim is justifiable, then the argument is a good deductive argument. But
when the claim is unjustified, then the argument is a bad deductive one.

B) An inductive argument
In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises, if granted, only offers a
partial or probable support to the truth of the conclusion. That is, if the truth
of the premises is granted, then the truth of the conclusion is only probable
and not guaranteed. For example,
1. Most Luo people like eating fish
Mangla likes eating fish
Therefore, probably Mangla is a Luo
2. There are 100 mangoes in the basket
70 of the mangoes picked at random are found to be rotten
Therefore, probably all the 100 mangoes in the basket are
rotten.

In an inductive argument, the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth
of the premises with some degree of probability.
2.2A proposition
A proposition is a sentence that is either true or false. The condition of a
sentence being true or false is called truth –value. A proposition therefore is
a sentence with a truth value. A proposition is a declarative sentence as
opposed to an interrogative sentence (question), exclamation, imperative
sentence (commands), suggestions and performing sentence. For example,
1. Egerton University is in Kenya ( Declarative sentence)
2. How many people are in the room? (Interrogative sentence)
3. Please close the window (Imperative sentence)
4. What a nice day! ( Exclamation)
5. With this water, I bless you ( Performing sentence)

A proposition is either a premise or a conclusion but only within the context

of an argument. Whether a proposition is a premise or a conclusion depends
on the role it plays.

2.2.1 Types of Propositions

a) Simple proposition
A simple proposition is normally a categorical one. A categorical proposition
is one that asserts that the subject class is either wholly or partially included
in or excluded from the predicate class. A standard categorical proposition
has four components, which are;
i. Quantifier.
ii. A subject term ( represents a subject class)
iii. A copula ( a form of verb “to be” eg is or are)
iv. A predicate term ( represents a predicate class)

A standard categorical proposition takes in of the following four forms.

i. All S are Peg. All human beings are mortal

ii. No S are Peg No human beings are mortal

iii. Some S are Peg Some human beings are mortal

 v. Some S are not P eg Some human beings are not mortal

Conventionally, the four basic forms of categorical propositions are referred

to by letters A, E, I, and O. These letters are derived from two Latin words
Affirmo( I affirm) and Nego (I deny). The first two vowels (A and I) from the
word affirmorepresent the two affirmative forms of categorical propositions.
The other two vowels (E and O) from the word Negorepresent the two
negative forms of the propositions

When a proposition makes reference to all members of the subject class,

then it is said to be universal as in i and ii above.

When a proposition makes reference to some members of its subject class, it

is said to be particular as in iii and iv above.

When a proposition affirms the inclusion of its subject class wholly or

partially into its predicate class, it is said to be affirmative as in i and iii
above.

When a proposition denies the inclusion of its subject class wholly or partially
into its predicate class, it is said to be negative as in ii and iv above.

Therefore a proposition can be;

1. Universal affirmative eg All S are P

2. Universal negative eg. No S are P
3. Particular affirmative eg. Some S are P
4. Particular negative eg Some S are not P

b) Compound proposition
Compound propositions are hypothetical(conditional), disjunctive or bi-
conditional.
An hypothetical proposition is of the form, “If p then q. eg If one is a Kenyan
then one is an African.
A disjunctive proposition is in the form “either p or q”. eg Either one is noble
or ignoble.

A conjunctive proposition is in the form “both p and q”. eg Both Akinyi and
Anyango are Kenyans.

A bi-conditional is in the form”p if and only if q”. eg One is a wife if and only
if one has a husband.

2.3 Validity, Strength and Truth

2.3.1 Validity
Validity is an attribute of a deductive argument and not of inductive
argument. It refers to a particular form/structure of an argument. The form
refers to the nature of the relationship between the premises and the
conclusion of an argument. Validity is a relational condition between the
propositions of a deductive argument such that if the truth of the premises is
granted, then the truth of the conclusion is also established necessarily. In
such a situation, it is impossible for one to accept the truth of the premises
and at the same time deny the truth of the conclusion without a
contradiction. Thus, to accept the truth of the premises but deny the truth of
the conclusion is to assert a contradiction. For example,
All human beings are rational beings
All Africans are human beings
Therefore, all Africans are rational beings.

From this example, if one accepts that all human beings are rational beings
and that all Africans are human beings, then by being human, Africans must
be rational like the rest of the human beings. Here, the claim in the premises
justifies the claim in the conclusion.

A valid argument, therefore, has a good/correct relationship between its

premises and a conclusion, hence a good structure.

2.3.2 Invalidity
It is a relational condition of a deductive argument such that the truth of its
premises, if granted does not guarantee the truth of its conclusion. The
propositions are arranged or related in such a way that the truth of the
premises, if granted, does not imply the truth of its conclusion. In such a
situation, one can accept the truth of the premises and still dent the truth of
the conclusion at the same time without any contradiction.
An invalid argument, therefore, has a bad or incorrect structure such that the
truth of the premises does not justify its conclusion. For example’

All African are black.

All Kenyans are black.

Therefore, All Kenyans are Africans.

2.4 Strength
Strength is used when referring an inductive argument and not deductive
argument. It is also a relational condition that holds between the
propositions of an argument. It refers to a kind of structure of an inductive
argument.
An inductive argument is said to be strong when it is such that if its premises
are assumed or granted to be true, then its conclusion has a higher
probability of being true. For example,

There are 50 students in the logic class

40 of then picked randomly are found to be poor in logic.

Therefore, probably, all the 50 students in the class are poor in logic.

A weak inductive argument is such that of its premises are assumed true,
then, its conclusion has little or no probability of being true. For example,

There are 50 students in the logic class

10 of then picked randomly are found to be poor in logic.

Therefore, probably, all the 50 students in the class are poor in logic.
A good inductive argument is therefore a strong one while a bad inductive
argument is a weak one. Bad inductive arguments are the basis of most
stereotype attitudes in our daily life.

All cases of bad arguments whether they are invalid or weak (poor) inductive
arguments, are cases of poor reasoning in which the truth of the conclusions
are not established or least established on the basis of the truth of their
premises.

2.5 Truth
The main aim of reasoning is to establish the truth of the assertions made on
the basis of the truth of the given premises/evidences. So if in any reasoning,
there is a failure to establish either necessarily or with some degree of
probability, the truth of the assertions made, then the reasoning is defective.
This is due to either the arguments being either invalid or weak, or some of
the premises used being false.

2.6 Hypothetical and Actual Truth

We assume that certain propositions are true for the sake of illustration in
order to see what would be the implications were the propositions actually
true. For such a purpose, the propositions need not be true in reality. Such
assumption of truth is what is referred to as hypothetical truth.
Hypothetical truth is used to establish validity or strength. For example,

All human beings have 3 legs and Oriare is a human being.

Therefore, Oriare has 3 legs.

So, if we assume that it is true that all human beings have 3 legs, and that it
is also true that Oriare is a human being, then it must also be accepted to be
the case, on the basis of that assumption alone, that Oriare has 3 legs.
Hypothetical truth helps in illustrating and understanding forms and
structures of arguments. It is solely for illustrating the nature of relationship
that exists between the propositions of an argument.

2.7 Sound Argument

Soundness or unsoundness applies only to deductive arguments. A sound
argument is an argument that is both valid and has all actually true
premises.In such a case the argument establishes the truth of its conclusion.
For example,
All human beings breathe, and Oriare is a human being.

Therefore, Oriare breathes.

We know that human beings actually breathe and Oriare is actually a human
being. Therefore, the above premises are actually true. The argument is also
valid.

A sound argument is therefore one that is not defective either factually or

logically (Must be valid and must have all its premises being actually true.)

On the other hand, a unsound argument is a deductive argument that is

either invalid or has at least a false premise. For example

Women are wise, and Sheila is a woman

Therefore Sheila must be wise.

It should be noted that when we say”women are wise”, in logic it means all
women are wise. From the argument above, it is true that all women are
wise and Sheila is a woman, then it must necessarily be true that Sheila is
wise. The argument is therefore valid. However, it is unsound because at
least one of its premises is false (it is not actually true that all women are
wise). This argument fails to establish the truth of its conclusion.

In another instance, argument may have both of its premises actually true
and its conclusion actually false. For example
 All catholic priests are unmarried
All catholic nuns are unmarried
Therefore, all catholic nuns are catholic priests
The above argument is invalid. Despite the fact that both its premises are
true, its conclusion is false. It is invalid because the fact that it is true that all
catholic priests are unmarried does not make any unmarried person a
catholic priest.
The above argument is unsound, not because it has any false premise, but
because it is invalid.

2.8 Cogent Argument

A cogent argument refers to an inductive argument that is both strong and
has all actually true premises. For example
All the previous Chancellors of Egerton University have been men.

Therefore, it next Vice chancellor will most likely be a man.

On the other hand, auncogent argument is an inductive argument that is

either weak or has some actually false premises. For example,

Since Kenya got its independence more 40 years ago, it has had only
two women as ministers for culture and social services. Therefore,
probably the next minister for culture and social services will be a
woman.

This argument is weak in the sense that given the small percentage of
previous ministers for culture and social services in over 40 years, it is least
likely the next minister will be a woman.

2.9 Mistakes to be avoided in Arguments

a) Logical mistake (also called fallacy)
Any argument that is either invalid or weak is said to have committed a
logical mistake. It emanates from the failure to recognize that the claim of
the premises of a given argument does not support the claim of its
conclusion. Therefore, a fallacy is a structural or formal defect in an
argument. It is a relationship between premises and conclusion of an
argument such that, even if the truth of the premises is granted, it either
does not support or least supports the truth of its conclusion.

b) Factual mistake
Any argument that is either valid or strong, but has some false premises fails
to establish the truth of its conclusion. Such an argument commits a factual
mistake. Due to a factual mistake a premise is made false. Any conclusion
based on or inferred from a false premise must also be false.

Topic Summary
In this topic you learnedthe basic terms in logic, different types of
propositions and the difference between deductive and inductive arguments.

In summary;

● An argument is a set of propositions in which the truth of one of the

propositions is claimed to be established on the basis of the truth of
the other propositions either necessarily or by some probability.
● A deductive argument is one in which there is a claim that if the truth
of its premises is granted, then its conclusion is also true as a matter of
logical necessity.
● In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises, if granted, only
offers a partial or probable support to the truth of the conclusion.
● A proposition is a sentence that is either true or false. The condition of
a sentence being true or false is called truth –value.
● A simple proposition is normally a categorical one. A categorical
proposition is one that asserts that the subject class is either wholly or
partially included in or excluded from the predicate class.
● Compound propositions are hypothetical (conditional), disjunctive or bi-
conditional.
 ● Validity refers to a particular form/structure of an argument. The form
refers to the nature of the relationship between the premises and the
conclusion of an argument.
● Strengthrefers to a kind of structure of an inductive argument.
● A sound argument is an argument that is both valid and has all actually
true premises.
● A cogent argument refers to an inductive argument that is both strong
and has all actually true premises.
● The two conditions that a good argument must avoid if the truth of a
conclusion is to be established are logical mistake and factual mistake.

Further Reading
Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 9- 27.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic Activity
Construct five deductive and five inductive arguments.

Topic Assignment (for self assessment)

1. Discuss the different kinds of arguments.
2.State and explain the meaning of the following terms;
i. Validity
ii. Strength
 iii. Truth

TOPIC THREE: SIMPLE APPREHENSIONS AND UNIVERSALS

Introduction

Welcome to topic three. This topic is aimed at introducing you to

simple apprehensions and universals.

Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also
start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. Define simple apprehensions and universals.

ii. Explain “concepts” and their divisions.

iii. State and explain the problem of universals

Topic Content
3.1 Simple Apprehension
Simple apprehension is simply a perception or grasping a meaning mentally.
It is a mental act by which the intellect separates the essential attributes
from the individual or accidental ones. This mental activity of separating
essence from individuality is called abstraction. Essence refers to general
significance or meaning. It is from the act of abstraction that human beings
come to develop general concepts. Abstraction is the process by which the
mind forms the concept or concept formation that is referred to as simple
apprehension.

Simple apprehension is therefore defined as an act by which the human

mind grasps the general meaning of an object or reality without affirming or
denying anything about it. It is simply to understand what a thing is. For
example, the meaning of a chair, man, son, and tree. This simple
understanding does not involve making judgement in the form of affirming or
denying about the object or reality

When we begin to think about reality in the form of affirming or denying

anything about it, then we no longer simply apprehend it but making a
judgement. For example, to say “a chair is beautiful” is to go beyond the
mere meaning of a chair, and claim that the chair has the quality of being
beautiful.

A judgement therefore is defined as a mental act by which the mind affirms

or denies something about an object or a reality that has already been
apprehended. Judgements presuppose the act of simple apprehension and
are expressed in propositions. The judgment once expressed as proposition,
can be true or false.

Judgements constitute the basis of reasoning. Reasoning is the mental

ordering of judgements, evaluating their implications and drawing
conclusions based on them. On the basis of reasoning, judgements are
formulated. Judgement is a mental process that begins from certain
assumptions and moves on to certain consequences thought to follow from
those assumptions. This process entails inference.

An inference is a mental act by which a judgement is derived from a certain

given judgement(s). The derived judgement must be thought to be implied
by the one(s) from which it is derived.

3.2 Concepts
A concept can be defined as a general idea that corresponds to some class of
entities or situations, and consists of the essential features of the class. It is
the abstraction of general meaning from an individual thing presented to the
human mind through either the senses or image.
A concept presents essential content of nature that exists either in external
reality or only in human mind, for example, man and vampire. Man exists
only in the reality while vampire exists only in the mind. A concept therefore
is a mental content through which we know nature. It is the unity of essence
and an indeterminate number of individuals.

Image can be defined as a mental picture that is physically or materially

representative. While concepts are intangible, immaterial and universal
meanings, images represent definite individuals which are tangible and
material.

Concepts are subjects of judgement and reasoning while images only inform
our intelligence with the sensual nature of realities.

3.3 Comprehension of Concepts

Some concepts are such that they involve a number of essential elements.
The many elements or parts that constitute the essence or meaning are
called notes in logic.
A concept therefore is the unity of notes. To understand the total notes of a
concept is what is called the comprehension of a concept. The
comprehension of a concept can therefore be defined as the complete
articulation of the total or sum of the intelligible elements or notes of a
concept.

It is also referred to as connotation of a concept or simply connotation, which

is simply the totality of the essential elements of an object or reality
presented by a concept or a term.

3.4 Extension of Concepts

This is sometimes referred to as denotation of a concept or simply
denotation. It is the enumeration of all things, actual or possible to which the
concept properly refers. It is the sum total of all things a concept denotes.
Comprehension of a concept and its extension vary inversely in that an
increase in the comprehension (increasing the notes) reduces its extension.
Take for example the concept of man. If man is defined as a material, living,
sentient and rational substance, then the comprehension of the concept man
has the following notes: substance, material, living, sentient, and rational.

If the comprehension of the concept man is reduced by leaving out some of

the notes, for example, rational, then the concept man would refer to more
individuals than when its comprehension includes the note rational, hence
the reduction of comprehension of a concept increases its extension and vice
versa.

A concept can be conceived subjectively as an act of conceiving or

classifying; or it can be conceived objectively as the content of the act of
conceiving.

Universal concepts are either direct or reflex. A concept is direct when it can
be predicated on many singulars or individuals, and distributively taken as
one. For example, Human is a universal direct concept.

A concept is reflex when it refers to a class that cannot be predicated on

anything. For example, the concept of humanity.
Concepts can also be either first intention or second intention. A concept is
first intention when it refers to individuals which are themselves not
concepts eg man. A concept is second intention when it refers to an
individual that is itself a concept eg. Concept.

3.4.1 Divisions of Concepts

i) Concrete and Abstract concepts
A concept is concrete when it presents the meaning of a subject (being), or
meaning in a subject 9quality of subject). This means that concrete concepts
are not only meanings of subjects but also their qualities, or characteristics
in subject. The subject need not to be only real, but can be imaginary, actual,
possible, material or immaterial. For example, man, red, angel, dog, soul,
supernatural and divine.
A concept is abstract when it represents a meaning of a quality as if it were
the meaning of a thing existing in itself independent of the subject. It refers
to the state of being that is thought of as if it were itself a being or subject.
For example, humanness, redness, stupidity, colour or sensation.

Therefore, what a thing is, is its nature and qualities in the concrete while
what makes a things what it is, is its nature and qualities in the abstract.

ii. Collective and Divisive Concepts

A concept is collective when it refers to a totality of beings taken as a single
unit. For example, army, flock or team. The individual subjects or things, or
beings taken as unit are called singulars. Since a collective concept stands
for many singulars, every direct concept is universal.
A concept is divisive when its ultimate singulars are individual beings – not a
group of collectivity. This means that the singulars of a divisive concept can
be taken one by one eg man, soldier, and player.
iii) Singular and Particular Concepts
A concept is singular when its extension is restricted or limited to one
definite or single individual. For example ”This man” or “the dream team”
A concept is particular when its extension is limited to some indefinite and
indeterminate individual(s). For example, “some books” or “some man”.

3.5 The problem of Universals

Universal is a property or a relation that can be instantiated by a member of
particular things. The things to which a universal refers or covered by a
universal must be similar in some respects. Universal thus refers to common
or general properties shared by every particular thing to which a universal
refers. Here, it is used as a synonym of concept. AdeThe problem of
universal concerns the status of words. It addresses the problem of words
and their corresponding realities or referents.

The problem of the universals is one of the two major problems that plagued
philosophers of the Middle ages in Europe. The problem is that of faith and
reason, whose concern was the compatibility or incompatibility of the two.

The problem of the universals addressed itself to the issue of the nature of
existence or the ontological status of the reality to which concepts refer. This
problem may be illustrated in terms of the scientific laws of categorization.
For example, “animal” is a generic concept that can further be divided into
specific groups like ‘rational animals’, ‘none rational animals’, and ‘ four
legged animals’ which become specific concepts.

The problem can therefore be expressed as: Universals or concepts are

abstract and general representations while existing things are concrete and
particulars. So what does a concept represent? Put in other words, how does
the mind perceive a universal and what is the relationship between a
universal and its particular instance?
The problem was introduced by Anicius Manlius Boethius (475/480-520/525
AD) who had translated, from Geek, an easy about Aristotle by Porphyry
(232-304 AD). Porphyry had questioned the nature of existence or the
ontological status of general and species. He asks whether universals subsist
in themselves or only in the mind- Whether they exist as concepts or
relations but not as facts. He wondered whether they subsist as corporeal or
incorporeal, and whether they exist independently of their particular
instantations or in conjunction with them. Take an example of dog. Let us
take the case of ‘the brown dog’. Do the words ‘dog’ and ‘brown name the
individual or the classes of canines and brown things. And are these classes
real? What is the nature of their reality? Or are they artificially created by
human mind?

We therefore can say that the problem of the universals is the problem of the
nature of existence of individuals and the corresponding classes of the
individuals.

The debate on this problem resulted into many different ideas and groups.
The main or dominant views can be grouped as:

a) Extreme Realism
Realism is the position that the things or reality lies and exists outside the
human mind. It is the view that universals exists independently of the human
mind. There are two versions of realism;
i) Rebus realismwhich holds that universals exist without particular
thing to which they refer. This means that universals cannot exist
without particular things to which they refer.
ii) Ante Rem realism – This is the view that the universals can exist
even if they do not have instance- can exist without referring to any
particular thing

Extreme realism represents one the extreme positions on the debate. This
group comprised strict Platonists who are called exaggerated or extreme
realists. This groups the view that classes or concept are not only real, but
also more real than individuals.

b) Nominalism
Nominalism represents the other extreme position in the debate. It is of the
view that only individuals or particulars exist in nature, and hence real. But
words denoting classes are merely names that don’t exist in nature: hence
not real. Universals don’t exist except as thoughts in the human mind.
According to nominalists, classifications only create differences and
similarities which exist only in the minds of speakers, but not in nature. This
group is best represented by Roscelin (1050-1120 AD) and William of
Ockham. According to Roscelin, Universals are mere flatus vocis, a breath of
the voice. To him, man, for example, is not a unity but only a common name
given to certain things.

To William, the only things that exist outside the mind are the singulars.
Universals do not have real distinct properties and nature apart from the
things that possess them. Though he allowed the mind the power of
abstractive cognition, his position is nearer to a form of conceptualism. His
celebrated principle entia non suntmultiplicandapracternecessitatem(entities
are not to be multiplied beyond necessity). Become known as Ockham’s
razor. According to this principle there should be no more universals than
were called for in order to name things- no more than were necessary.

Nominalists maintain that there are no concepts independent of linguistic

expressions. Only individual things exist in nature. They deny the universals
in things. To them there is common to singulars or objects except our
applying the same words to them.

The implications of the nominalists’ position on the faith of the old people
was that if there were no universals, or if the universals were notthe most
real, then neither were the dogmas of the church.
Nominalists are yet to answer the question why different individuals which
have nothing in common are described or referred to by the same term or
word.. It would seem sensible to to claim that individuals that are classified
together must have some common things, or share certain features. If that
granted, therefore, nominalists’ position on universals is untenable.

In the light of the nominalists, there is need to distinguish between word as

word in terms of letters that constitute it, the sound that articulate it in
speech, and the meaning of a word sound. This distinction would probably
check the extreme position of nominalism in that it would differentiate
between a concept and the meaning it portrays.

c) Conceptualism
This is the view that a concept (universal) corresponds to nothing in reality.
Concepts do not correspond to entities in nature. To the conceptualist, we do
not get concepts from things but we put them into things. Concepts only
exist in the mind and come from the mind. Universals are therefore
reflections of the tendency of the mind to classify or group things together.
They reflect our grasp of concepts, and such they exist but they are
dependent on the mind. Therefore they are a creation of the mind. A
universal is a property that can be instantiated by more than one individual.
Conceptualists believe that universals are neither immanent nor
transcendental. They are merely concepts - principles of classification of
things.

Traditional conceptualists believe that universals are concepts which are

often called ideas. But they are mental representations presumably
resembling the things of which they are classifications.. However, there are
some conceptualists who consider concepts as general words that properly
classify things. Such conceptualists would be considered nominalists as well.
According to conceptualists, there is no nature or essence in things. But
nature or essence is simply a way of thinking about things (nominal).
Therefore, conceptualism is a modification of nominalism.

d) Moderate realism
This view is as reconciliation of the extremes- extreme realism and
nominalism. Here, universals are neither autonomous forms nor merely
mental states. They represent the characteristics of their particulars and
constitute the similarities between particulars. And the characteristics exist
in nature.
Moderate realists believe that the universals are firmly fixed to the
particulars such that they constitute the meaning of the particulars. They are
the ‘whatness’ of the particulars. The human mind therefore abstracts these
universals and they become concepts. The views of St. Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274 AD) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142 AD) best represent this
group.

Moderate realists seem to have incorporated the Aristotelian theory of

individuation of form and abstraction in their attempt to solve the problem of
universals. Their views generally include;

1. It is only particulars that exist

2. Universals only exist in the mind
3. Universal signify things immediately grounded in nature, but ultimately
grounded in Divine ideas.
4. All concepts come from experience; hence there are no innate ideas.

Aristotle’s Solution: Aristotle’s metaphysical analysis of existing things

rested on a distinction between prime matter and substantial form. Each
thing has substantial form but which in each case has been received by
aprime matter and individuated. Therefore, anything of a particular kind is
accounted for by its substantial form and prime matter. So, the two are co-
principles. The two principles are transcendentally related such that the
existence of one depends on the other.

To Aristotle, form is in each individual but as individuated by matter. It is

neither an abstract nor an absolute idea in the platonic sense. Whatever
exists therefore exists both in matter and in form. Every individual has form,
and its form is its universal. There is neither formless matter nor matterless
form. Universals therefore exist in things but not independently of them.
Aristotle rejected the Plato’s world of pure forms and hence a distinction
between appearance and reality. However, both are realists because they
believed that reality lies outside human mind. To Plato, there are two worlds
while to Aristotle, there is only one external world comprised of matters and
forms (Universals).

Topic Summary
In this topic you learned meaning of simple apprehensions and universals, in
“concepts” and their divisions and the problem of universals.
In summary;

● Simple apprehension is defined as an act by which the human mind

grasps the general meaning of an object or reality without affirming or
denying anything about it.
● A judgement is defined as a mental act by which the mind affirms or
denies something about an object or a reality that has already been
apprehended. Judgements constitute the basis of reasoning. Reasoning
is the mental ordering of judgements, evaluating their implications and
drawing conclusions based on them.
● A concept can be defined as a general idea that corresponds to some
class of entities or situations, and consists of the essential features of
the class. It is the abstraction of general meaning from an individual
thing presented to the human mind through either the senses or
image.
 ● Extension of conceptsis the enumeration of all things, actual or
possible to which the concept properly refers. It is the sum total of all
things a concept denotes.
● There are three divisions of Concepts ie, concrete and abstract
concepts, collective and divisive Concepts and singular and particular
Concepts.
● Universal refers to common or general properties shared by every
particular thing to which a universal refers. Here, it is used as a
synonym of concept.
● The problem of the universals addressed itself to the issue of the
nature of existence or the ontological status of the reality to which
concepts refer. The problem can be expressed as: Universals or
concepts are abstract and general representations while existing
things are concrete and particulars.
● The debate on the problem of universals resulted into many different
ideas and groups. These include; Extreme Realism, Nominalism,
Conceptualism and Moderate realism.

Further Reading

Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 29- 44.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.
Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic Activity

Discus Aristotle’s solution to the problem of universals.

Topic Assignment (for self-assessment)

1. What do you understand by the word “concept”?

2. What do you understand by the following terms?

i. Simple apprehension

ii. Abstraction

iii. Inference

iv. Judgement

3. Discuss the problem of universals.

TOPIC FOUR: DEFINITION

Introduction

Welcome to topic four. This topic is aimed at introducing you to the concept
“definition”.You will learn the meaning of definition, different functions of
definition, nature of definitions, techniques for formulating connotative
definitions and kinds and purposes of definitions

Topic Time
• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice
exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes
By the end of this topic you should be able to:
i. State the meaning of definition.
ii. Explain the different functions of definitions.
iii. Explain the nature of definitions.
iv. Explain the application of different methods for formulating connotative
definitions.
v. Explain the application of the kinds and purpose of definitions.

Topic Content
4.1 Meaning of Definition
The meaning of definition is the giving of meaning or signification of a word,
term, phrase or symbol. It is a statement of meaning.
Definition is considered vital in the study of logic but also in discourses and
everyday communication. Logic studies arguments. These arguments are
made up of statements, which are inturn, made up of words. Words have
meanings and these meanings are conveyed through definitions.

A term is a word or arrangement of words that may serve as a subject or

predicate of a proposition. Terms could be proper names like “Anyango”
common names like “animal: or descriptive phrases like “those who study
logic”.

Words are symbols, and the entities or realities they symbolize are usually
called meanings. Since terms are made up of words, they are also symbols,
which have two kinds of meanings; extensional and intensional meanings.

Definition of terms is significant for various reasons;Understanding the

meaning of terms is necessary in evaluating the truth – value of propositions
as well as the correctness or incorrectness of arguments in which they
appear. Without understanding the meaning of terms in an argument, we
cannot adequately evaluate the goodness or the badness of an argument.

In definition, the word to be defined is technically called definiendum and

the defining word or phrase is called definiens.

4.2 General Functions of Definitions

1. One learns the meaning of terms hitherto unknown- means of
acquiring knowledge.
2. Definitions are vital in society due to their social, economic and
political implications. For example, how certain terms, acts, behavior
are defined affect people’s conduct and their interaction in society.

3. Definitions give guidelines on the interpretations of words we use in

discourse and communication which help in avoiding or reducing
possible conflicts which may arise due to each person sticking to
his/her idea of what a word may mean to him/her.
4. Definitions are important in eliminating vagueness and ambiguity. A
term is vague when its meaning is slurred such that one cannot tell
with any degree of precision what it means in a given situation.

Vagueness: Refers to a situation when the meaning of a term has

borderline cases such that it cannot be detrmined to which meaning it
applies.

Ambiguity: Refers to a situation where a term has more than one possible
clear meaning, but is used in a context in which it is not clear which meaning
is intended.

4.3 Nature of Definitions

Definitions can be categorized into two main types.
a) Denotative definition/ extensional definition
Denotative definition of a word/term expresses the extensional meaning of
the definition – the word being defined. The extensional meaning consists of
the members of the class that the definiendum denotes. To denote is simply
used to point at, or to “to name”. Therefore, the denotation of a word refers
to the things to which the word refers or point without invoking feelings or
ideas connected with the word.
Denotative definition is the indication to the terms extension by citing all or
some of the things to which the definiendum can properly refer. For
example,

1. Planet = Mercury, Venus, Earth ,Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,

Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
2. Carnivore = Dogs, Cats, Tigers, Wolves, Foxes, Hyenas, Owls
Dolphins and Vultures.

Denotative definition is adequate if the definiens lists all the things to which
the definiendum properly refers. However, in some cases it is difficult to the
definiens to be exhaustive. Moreover, there are also some words for which it
is practically impossible to provide any denotative definition leave alone an
adequate denotative definition. For example, being, understand, infinity,
time, and infer.

Denotative definition can either be enumerative or ostensive definition.

Enumerative definition indicates the class or lists things to which the

definiendum properly refers. In this definition, the definiens lists words or
presents actual examples of things, properties, relations, concepts etc to
which the definiendum may correctly be applied. For example.

Relative = Father, mother, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, grandparent and

grandchild.

Each of the definiens properly represents the meaning of a relative.

However, it would be very difficult to exhaust the list of all things to which
the term ‘relative’ properly applies. For a enumerative definition to be
adequate, it would require that the definiens enumerate most, if not all, of
the things to which the definiendum properly refers.

Ostensive definitioninvolves giving concrete examples or appropriate

sensory experiences to which the definiendeum properly refers. The sensory
experiences can be visual or non visual. For example, the meaning of
‘mouth’ or what it is can be given simply by pointing at a ‘mouth’. The
meaning of ‘hard’ or ‘sweet’ can be given simply by being made to touch a
‘hard’ thing or to taste a ‘sweet’ thing.

Ostensive definition is easy to formulate particularly in the absence of pre-

existing adequate language. Ostensive definition is very prone to
misinterpretation. For example, when one give the meaning of ‘door” by
showing what the door is by holding the handle, one may mistake a handle
for a door.

b) Connotative Definition
This is the statement of the intension of the definiendum or the essential
qualities that must be present before the definiendum can be properly
applied. The meaning of a word can be known without necessarily knowing
the extension of the word. The term connotation refers only to the essential
characteristics or set of attributes of the things marked or referred to by the
definiendum. It is the totality of the attributes shared by all, and only those
things within a term’s extension.
In a connotative definition, the definiens pinpoints the meaning of the
definiendum by listing the set of properties common to all. For example,

1. Triangle = a three sided polygon

2. Triangle = defined as a three sided rectilinear polygon.

Example 1 above includes in the meaning of a triangle the three-sided

polygons even with curved sides but which are not triangles However,
definition 2 above excludes from the meaning of a triangle any three-sided
polygon with curved sides. So, the second definition is better than the first
one.

In a good connotative definition, the definiens narrows down the possible

meanings of the definiendum until, ideally, the sum total of the properties
given applies not only entirely, but also exclusively to the particular
definiendum. An adequate connotative definition must provide those
attributes which, when included in the definiens, are most informative, most
characteristic of the definiendum, and least prone to misinterpretation.

An increase in the connotation (adding more attributes) of a definiendum

either decreases or leaves unchanged the denotation of the definiendum, but
cannot increase its denotation. Conversely, a decrease in the connotation
either increases or leaves unchanged the denotation of the definiendum, but
cannot decrease it.

4.7 Techniques for Formulating Connotative definitions

a) Definition by synonyms
This method uses one-word synonyms. The definiens consists of only one
word which can be appropriately used interchangeably with the definiendum.
Such a definition is called synonymous definition. For example
1. Freedom = Liberty
2. Obese = fat
3. Intentionally = purposely
4. Conceal = hide
5. Lugubrious = doleful

Synonymous definition is the shortest definition and not always the most
precise and useful. It is only precise when the definiens has the same
intentional meaning as the definiendum. However there are some words for
which it is difficult or not easy to get their synonyms. For example,
‘covetous’ is not exactly synonymous with ‘envious’. It therefore would not
be an adequate synonymous definition to give the meaning of “covetous’ as
‘envious’. Covetous has as part of its meaning a stronger desire or feelings
than envious.

Another problem with this definition is that one has to know the meaning of
the definiens, otherwise the definition would be almost useless. For example,
to define ‘lugubrious’ as ‘doleful’ becomes useless if one does not know the
meaning of doleful.

b) Definition by genus and difference

This is one of the common and good ways of giving a definition. It consists in
stating the general class of things to which the definiendum belongs and
then further specifying the properties by which the definiendum can be
differentiated from the other members of the same class.
Traditionally, the general category or class to which the definiendum belongs
is known as the genus while the properties by which the definiendum is
differentiated from the other members of the genus is known as differentia
or difference. For example,

1. man = a rational animal. Animal is the genus and rationality is the

differentia
2. Bed = a piece of furniture constructed to support the human body
lying horizontally. Furniture is the genus and being made to support
the human body lying horizontally is the differentia.

c) Operational Definition
In this definition, the definiens provides a test or formal procedure that is
followed to determine whether or not the definiendum applies to a certain
case. For example,
Brain activity = production of visible oscillations on an
electroencephalograph which has been properly attached to the head.

This definition shows what procedure to follow to determine whether or not a

brain activity takes place.

Operational definition prescribes an operation to be carried out to determine

whether the definiendum is applicable. This technique of definition is useful
when providing public or empirical criterion for the application of a term.

d) Definition by Contextuality
A context in which a word is used is vital in showing the intended meaning of
the word by the user. Here, the definiendum should be put in a context in
which the intended meaning is clear. A definition is adequate when it
indicates the context for which the definition is appropriate. Contextual
definitions effectively avoid ambiguity and vagueness. For example,
 X is the grandparent of Y = there is Z such that X is the parent of Z,
and Z is the parent of Y.

4.8 Kinds and Purposes of Definitions

a) Lexical definition
At times called reportive / real definition. It gives the meaning that the
definiendum ordinarily has among the people who use the language of which
the definiendum belongs. It gives the conventional meaning of the
definiendum and therefore shows how the term is actually used in a given
society.

Lexical definition serves the purpose of reporting the meaning of a term as it

is usually used or understood by most members of a specific group in
society. Most dictionary definitions are lexical definitions. Lexical definitions
express the existing ‘rule of language’.
A lexical definition can be enumerative, synonymous or operational.
Regardless of what form it takes, the lexical definition must report the
generally accepted meaning of term.

A lexical definition may be judged true or false depending on how accurately

it reports the meaning of a word as it is actually used by members of a
specific group or community.

However, a lexical definition may be limited to reporting the meaning of a

term only as it is used in a technical or otherwise limited context. For
example, if the meaning of a term is given as it is used within a particular
theory, then the lexical definition is called a theoretical definition.
Understanding a theoretical definition is partly the same as understanding an
important aspect of the theory.

Though theoretical definition is limited, it is still a lexical definition since it

gives meaning as generally understood by those who understand the theory
or discipline into which the definiendum falls.
Strictly speaking, a theoretical definition is neither true nor false because ai
its inception it is stipulative. However, it may be judged as either being true
or false depending on whether it accurately gives the meaning of a term or
definiendum as used in a particular theory.

A lexical definition becomes a legal definition if it gives meaning as used in

law This is the definition as specified in the laws formulated by a legislature
or executive body. For example,
Speeding = to drive at a rate exceeding certain specified kilometers
per hour.

b) Stipulative Definition
A definition is stipulative if it gives meaning to a term as an individual(s)
intend to use it. This definition is therefore more individual than social.
Stipulative definitions serve the purpose of introducing new meaning. This it
does by coining new words or assigning a new meaning to an old word. For
example one may define ‘decidophobia’, which is the reason why people
would employ certain strategies to avoid making fateful decisions as follows;
Decidophobia = Fear of autonomy
Tribality = the act of belonging to a tribe.
Stipulativedefinition arise as a result of some new phenomena or
developments. A stipulative definition is therefore neither true nor false
because it is an arbitrary assignment of a meaning to a term for the first
time, that is, it prescribes a new ‘rule of language’. After its introduction, a
stipulative definition can be absorbed into the general usage and thus
becomes a reportive definition. Stipulative definition is also referred to as
nominal definition or verbal definition.

c) Precising definition
A precising definition clarifies meaning in case of either ambiguity or
vagueness. The purpose of a precising definition is to eliminate ambiguity or
vagueness.
A precisisng definition differs from stipulative definition in the sense that it
does not assign a new meaning to a term but only makes clear or precise the
already known term. For example, when a term with an ordinary meaning is
used in certain contexts such as in science, mathematics or medicine, then
the meaning of such a term would need some clarification by means of a
précising definition.

A precising definition cannot strictly be judged as true or false. But is judged

good or bad depending on whether it adequately eliminates ambiguity and
vagueness without distorting the generally accepted meaning of the term.

d) Persuasive Definition
A persuasive definition assigns value-laden meaning to a term in such a way
that it would look like the real or correct meaning of the term in its general
usage. The purpose of persuasive definition is to influence the attitudes of
readers or listeners by arousing either a favourable or unfavourable attitude
towards what is denoted by the term or definiendum. For example,
Chiropractor= a person who claims to treat illness through
manipulation of a patient’s spine although not a licensed doctor.

Chiropractor = a highly trained and licenced manipulative practitioner,

who treats illness for which conventional medicine has been unable to
help.

From the example above, the first definition arouses an unfavourable

attitude towards the definiendum’s denotation while the second definition
arouses a favourable attitude towards the defineindum’s denotation.

A definition, be it enumerative, synonymous or operational can be used to

persuade, thus becomes persuasive definitions
4.9 Criteria for Formulating a good Connotative Definition
A good definition is an adequate definition, which should not only give a
correct meaning of the definiendum, but also accurately, completely and
clearly specify the conditions governing the use of the definition.
Some of the principles that guide the formulation of a good definition
include;

An adequate definition should;

1. state the definiendum’s connotation whenever it is a significant part of
its use. That is, it should convey the essential attributes of the
definiendum. For example;
Man = animal that has the capacity to reason and speak.
2. provide scope for use of the definiendum. It should answer the question,
‘in what context is the definiens to apply’ by indicating the context to
which the definiens apply particularly where the definiendum has
different meanings in different contexts
3. neither be too broad (wide) nor narrow. The definiens should not exclude
some of the things to which the definiendum properly apply, nor include
those to which it does not properly apply. For example, if “triangle = a
plane rectilinear figure with 3 sides of equal length” then the definition is
narrow since it excludes”right angled” to which the definiendum.
“triangle” properly applies.
4. Not be circular. When a definiendum or its derivative is used in the
definiens then the definition is circular. A definition is not circular when
one of the several words in a definiendum is repeated in the definiens so
long as that very word is not seriously in question. For example,
Isosceles triangle = triangle having two sides of equal length.
5. Not be negative when it can be affirmative. This is so because a negative
of something is a host of many things which are not the thing of which
they are negative. However, some terms are intrinsically negative and
 therefore for such a negative definition would be quite appropriate. For
example,
Orphan = a child who does not have either of the parents.
Bald = the absence of hair on one’s head.
6. Avoid affective terminologies- terminologies that arouse emotional
reactions, but instead state the meaning of the definiendum and the
conditions under which it should be used. For example,
Theism = belief in that great Santa Claus in the sky.
Marriage = social group consisting of one master, one mistress and
two slaves, making in all four.
7. Conform to the standards of proper grammar, that is, it should be
grammatically correct. For example,
Vacation = when you don’t have to go to work or school (incorrect)
Vacation = a period during which activity is suspended from work or
school (correct).
8. Not be expressed in needlessly technical or obscure, figurative, vague or
ambiguous language.
i) Technical language- the needless use of overly technical language is
one of the ways of obscuring the meaning of the definiendum and the
definition can hardly convey much information about the definiendum.
For example,
Eating = the successive performance of the functions of mastication,
humectation and deglutination.
ii. Figurative language- a figurative definition uses metaphors or paints a
picture instead of stating the essential meaning of a definiendum. For
example,
Camel = a ship of the desert
iii. Vague language- when a definition uses vague language, then the
meaning of the definiendum becomes blurred. For example,
Democracy = a form of government where the people are in control.
 One can hardly get the clear meaning of the definiens since it does not
specify the people who are in control, the means by which they get in
control, how that control is exercised, over whom it is exercised and for
what goals it is exercised.
iv. Ambiguous language – A definition which uses ambiguous language
becomes open to more than one clear interpretation. For example,
Triangle = a figure composed of three straight lines in which all angles
are equal to 180 degrees.

The definiens of this definition may mean each angle is equal to 180
degrees or the sum of the angles is equal ti 180 degrees. One cannot
clearly know the intended interpretation, hence meaning.

Topic Summary

In this topic you learnedthe meaning of definition, different functions of

definitions, nature of definitions, the application of different methods for
formulating connotative definitions and the application of the kinds and
purpose of definitions.

In summary;
● The meaning of definition is the giving of meaning or signification of a
word, term, phrase or symbol.
● Definition of terms is significant for various reasons. It helps
inevaluating the truth of propositions, the correctness or incorrectness
of arguments in which they appear and the goodness or the badness of
an argument.
● The general functions of definitions include;
o Means of acquiring knowledge.
o Definitions are vital in society due to their social, economic and
political implications.
 o Give guidelines on the interpretations of words we use in
discourse and communication.
o Eliminating vagueness and ambiguity.
● There are two main types of definitions; denotative and connotative
definition
● Denotative definition of a word/term expresses the extensional
meaning of the definition – the word being defined.Denotative
definition can either be enumerative or ostensive definition.
● In a connotative definition, the definiens pinpoints the meaning of the
definiendum by listing the set of properties common to all.
● Techniques used in formulation of connotative definitions include;
definition by synonyms, definition by genus and difference, operational
definition and definition by contextuality
● The different kinds and purposes of definitions are ;lexical definition,
stipulative Definition, precising definition and persuasive definition
● A good Connotative Definition should;
● State the definiendum’s connotation whenever it is a
significant part of its use.
● Provide scope for use of the definiendum.
● Neither be too broad (wide) nor narrow.
● Not be circular.
● Not be negative when it can be affirmative.
● Avoid affective terminologies
● Be grammatically correct.
● Not be expressed in needlessly technical or obscure,
figurative, vague or ambiguous language.

Further Reading

Mandatory
Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:
Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 45-62.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic Activity

Write ten words and their synonyms.

Topic Assignment (for self-assessment)

1. Define the term “definition” and discuss the different kinds of definitions.
2. Elucidate the various ways of formulating different kinds of definitions.

TOPIC FIVE: CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS

Introduction

Welcome to topic five. This topic is aimed at introducing you to the concept
of categorical propositions. This topic will introduce you to the concepts of
quality, quantity and distribution of categorical propositions. Further, it will
explain inferences based on the categorical propositions, Modern Square of
opposition and immediate inferences.

Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. Define the terms “quality, quantity and distribution”.

ii. Explain the relationship between quality, quantity and distribution.

iii. Explain inferences based on the categorical propositions.

iv. Explain the modern square of opposition.

v. Explain the application of immediate inferences.

Topic Content

5.1 Quality and Quantity

A categorical proposition asserts that its subject class is wholly or partially
included in or excluded from its predicate class. As stated earlier, there are
four kinds of categorical propositions as follows’
A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not P
Categorical propositions are the most basic forms of propositions, and
express the clearest meaning – being neither ambiguous nor vague.
A categorical proposition can be described in terms of quality and quantity.
Quality of a categorical proposition refers to the property of being affirmative
or negative (refer to topic 2).
Quantity of a categorical proposition refers to whether the proposition refers
to all or only some members of its subject class. It refers to the proposition
being either universal or particular (refer to topic 2 for details).

5.2 Distribution
Distribution as logical concept and in relation to categorical propositions
helps in understanding further the nature and meaning of categorical
propositions. Distribution refers to whether a proposition makes reference to
whole class or only some members of a class. A categorical proposition has
two classes: subject class and a predicate class (discussed in topic 2).
Distribution pertains to terms of a proposition, that is , either the subject
term or the predicate term. When a categorical proposition refers to the
whole membership of either of its classes, then the term that represents the
class is said to be distributed, but when a categorical proposition refers only
to some members of either of its classes, then the term that represents the
class is said to be undistributed.

Acategorical proposition distributes or does not distribute its term by virtue

of the position of the term within the proposition. The propositions are such
that each of them either distributes or does not distribute its terms by the
virtue of the position of the term in the proposition, that is, whether the term
is a subject or a predicate.

The Aproposition, “All S are P” refers to the whole class or entire

membership of its subject class, but does not refer to the entire membership
of its predicate class. This means that the term that represents the subject
class of an A proposition is distributed while the predicate class is
undistributed.

The Eproposition, “No S are P” refers to the entire membership of both its
subject and predicate class, and by excluding the whole of its subject class
from its predicate class. The proposition distributes the terms that
represents both the classes. For example, “ No human beings are dogs”
The I proposition, “Some S are P”, refers only to some members of each of
its classes. It refers to at least one member of each o the classes. The I
propositions, by its very structure distributes neither its subject term nor its
predicate term. For example, “Some dogs are friendly”.

The O proposition, “Some S are not P”, excludes at least one member of the
S class from the whole class of P. It makes reference to only some members
of the subject class but to the entire membership of the predicate class. O
proposition, by its very structure, does not distribute its subject term, but
distributes its predicate term.

5.3 Relationship between Quality Quantity and Distribution

Quality of a categorical proposition determines the distribution of its
predicate term. An affirmative proposition, regardless of its quantity, does
not distribute its predicate term. But a negative proposition, regardless of its
quantity distributes its predicate term. Therefore the A and I propositions
being affirmative in quality but different in terms of quantity, do not
distribute their predicate term.

A negative proposition, regardless of whether it is universal or particular

distributes its predicate term. For example an E proposition which is
negative in its quality but universal in quantity, distributes its predicate term.
An E proposition such as “No Kenyans are lazy”, excludes the whole class of
Kenyans from the whole class of lazy things. It therefore distributes both its
subject and predicate terms. An O proposition is also negative in quality but
particular in quantity. But an O proposition such as “Some Kenyans are not
lazy”, only excludes some Kenyans from the whole class of lazy things. It
therefore does not distribute its subject term but distributes its predicate
term.
In summary therefore;
1. Quality of a categorical proposition determines the distribution of its
predicate term while quantity determines the distribution of the
subject term.
2. Negative propositions distribute their predicate terms while affirmative
propositions do not distribute their predicate terms.
3. Universal propositions distribute their subject terms while particular
propositions do not distribute their subject terms

5.4 Inferences based on the Categorical Propositions

One of the ways of making inferences based on the categorical propositions
is derived from the logical relationship that exists between the four forms of
the propositions. This relationship can be explained through the use of
square commonly referred to as the Traditional or Aristotelian Square of
Opposition. The square outlines all the possible relationships that exists
between the categorical propositions as follows;
Traditional Square of Opposition

Contrariety
This is the relation that exists between the A and E forms of categorical
propositions. In this relationship, the A and the E are called contraries. The
relationship is such that both the categorical propositions cannot be true at
the same time, but can be false at the same time. This implies that when one
is given as true, then the other contrary must be false. But on the other
hand, when one is given as false then the truth value of the other cannot be
determined; it can be true or false.
Subcontrariety
Is a relation that exists between the Iand O forms of categorical propositions.
The I and O are referred to as subcontraries. They are such that both can
true at the same time, but cannot be false at the same time. If one is given
as true then the truth – value of the other cannot be determined. But on the
other hand, if one subcontrary is given as false then the other must be true.

Subalternation
Is a realtion that exists between the universal categorical propositions and
their corresponding particular propositions. That is, between A and I on one
hand and E and O on the other hand. The universal proposition is called the
superaltern while the corresponding particular proposition is called the
subaltern. This relationship is such that when the superaltern is given as
true, then its corresponding subaltern must also be true.. But if the
superaltern is given as false then the truth value of its corresponding
subaltern cannot be determined. However, when the subaltern is given as
true then the truth- value of its corresponding superaltern is undetermined.
But on the other hand, when the subaltern is given as false, then its
corresponding superaltern must also be false.

Contradiction
Is a relation that exists between universal and particular categorical
propositions having opposite qualities. That is, between A and O on one
hand and E and I on the other hand. With this relationship, the propositions
are called contradictories. The contradiction is such that the contradictories
have opposite truth– values. If one proposition is given as true, then its
contradictory must be false. But if one is given as false, then its
contradictory must be true. This implies that both the contradictories can
neither be true nor false at the same time.
From the above relationships the following inferences can be made. (Let us
take T to stand for True, F for False, and ? for undetermined)

Given that;

AT – EF(by contrariety), OF(by contradiction), and IT(by subalternation)

AF – E (by contrariety),OT(by contradiction), and I?(bysubalternation)

ET – AF (by contrariety), IF(by contradiction), and OT( by subalternation)

EF – A? (by contrariety), IT (by contradiction), and O? (bysubalternation)

OT – E? (bysubalternation), AF (by contradiction), and I? (by

subcontrariety)

OF – EF (by subalternation), AT (by contradiction), and IT (by

subcontrariety)

IT – A? (bysubalternation), EF (by contradiction), and O? (by

subcontrariety)

IF – AF (by subalternation), ET (by contradiction), and OT(by

subcontrariety)

5.5 Modern Square of Opposition

Modern square of opposition is based on the modern (Boolean) interpretation
of the universal categorical propositions. In this interpretation, the universal
categorical proposition are understood hypothetically.
Let us again look at the interpretation of the categorical propositions

Form Interpretation

A: All S are P No member of S class is outside of P class.

E: No S are P No members of S class are inside the P class

I: Some S are P At least one member of S class exists, and it is a

member of the P class

O: Some S are not P At least one member of S class exists, and is not a
member of the P class

The above interpretation differs from the traditional interpretation only in

respect to the universal categorical propositions. The traditional
interpretation assumes that, in all the cases, members of the subject class
actually exist while the modern interpretation asserts existence of members
of the subject classes of the particular propositions, but not of the universal
propositions. Modern interpretation of the universal propositions does not
assert that the members of the subject class exist or where they could be
found if they were to exist. But only indicates where the members cannot be
found if they were to exist.

The modern interpretation yields a totally different square of opposition.

With the exception of contradiction, none of the logical relationships that
exist in the traditional square of opposition hold in the modern square of
opposition. This can be explained using the example of the four propositions
given below.

A: All angels are white things.

E: No angels are white things.
I: Some angels are white things.
O: some angels are not white things.
Assuming that angels happen not to actually exist, then it will be just as true
that “No angels are outside the class of white things” as it is true that “No
angels are inside the class of white things”. In such a situation , both A and E
propositions would be true at the same time. This means by interpretation,
the A and E categorical propositions are not contraries. Therefore, the
relationship of contrariety does not hold on the modern square of opposition.
But if angels do not exist then it is false to say, “At least one angel exists,
and it is white”. It is equally false to say “At least one angel exists, and it is
not white”. Therefore, both the I and O categorical propositions are false at
the same time. Again, given the meaning of suncontrariety, then the I and O
propositions are not subcontraries.. The relationship of subcontrarietydoes
not as well hold on the modern square of opposition. But if the universal
categorical propositions can both be true at the same time just as their
corresponding particular propositions can both be false at the same time,
then the relationship of subalternation does not as well hold on the modern
square of opposition. Therefore, the only relationship that remains in the
modern square of opposition is that of contradiction.

The modern interpretation of the universal categorical propositions destroys

all the logical relationships that hold on the traditional square of oppositions
except the relationship of contradiction.

The Modern Square of opposition

5.6 Centrality of Contradiction

The relationship of contradiction is not only central and fundamental to the
logical understanding of the categorical propositions but also to logic as a
discipline. It is the most simple and basic to all logical relationships. A failure
to observe and adhere to this relationship and hence to the principle of
contradiction makes nonsense of any assertion.
The centrality of the relationship of contradiction can be seen in the fact that
all the other relationships on the traditional square of opposition can be
explained by employment of the relationship of contradiction. This involves
combining the relationship of contradiction with one another.

The relationship of contrariety can be explained by the use of contradiction

and subalternation, For example, if A is true then by contradiction, O is false.
But if O is false then by subalternation, E is false. On the other hand, if A is
false then by contradiction, O is true, But if O is true, then by subalternation,
the truth value of E is undetermined.

If E is thrue then by contradiction I is false, butIfI is false, then by

subalternationA is false, On the other hand, if E is false then by
contradiction, I is true. But if Iis false, then by subalternation, the truth value
of A is undetermined.

Subcontrariety can also be explained by combining the relationships of

contradiction and subalternation. For example, IfI is true, then by
contradiction, E is false. But if E is false then by subalternation, the truth
value of O is undetermined. On the other hand, If I is false, then by
contradiction, E is true. But if E is true, then by sulalternation, O is true.

If O is true, then by contradiction, A is false. And if A is false, then by

subalternation, the truth value of I is undetermined. However, if O is false,
then by contradiction, A is true. But if A is true, then by subalternation, I is
true.

Subalternation can be explained by combining the relationships of

contradiction and, either contrariety or subcontrariety. For example, if A is
true, then by contradiction, O is false and consequently by subcontrariety I is
true. But if A is false, then by contradiction, O is true, and consequently by
subcontrariety, O is true, then the truth value of I is
undetermined.Conversely, if Iis false, then by contradiction, E is false, and
consequently, by contrariety A is false. The same explanation applies to the
relationship between E and O.

5.7 Further Immediate Inferences

Other inferences that can be made from categorical propositions are
conversion, obversion and contraposition. These inferences are not based on
the traditional square of opposition. But they bring out the nature of
relationships that pertain to the two classes of a categorical proposition and
their respective complements. This helps in understanding the meaning of
the propositions especially in terms of the nature and extent of inclusion and
exclusion between the two classes of a categorical proposition, that is, the
subject and predicate classes. The processes of conversion, obversion and
contraposition are immediate because they involve inferences made from a
given categorical proposition (premise) without any mediating premise.
a) Conversion
Is a process of inference based simply in interchanging the subject and
predicate terms of a given categorical proposition. The proposition from
which an inference is made is called convertend and the inference made is
called converse. For example,
Convertend Converse
A: All S are P All P are S (invalid)
E: No S are P No P are S (valid)
I: some S are P Some P are S (valid)
O: Some S are not P Some P are not S (invalid)
Let us examine each inference by use of some examples.
A: proposition
From the venn diagram above, the diagram for the convertend and its
converse are not identical which means they do not make the same
assertions. So to infer the converse from the converted is to make a different
assertion . Hence, the converse of A proposition is not a valid inference and
it is not logically equivalent to its convertend.
A valid converse of A proposition would be “Some P are S. For example, to
say, “All Africans are human Beings” is indeed true. If so, it must also be true
that some human beings are Africans. However, though this converse is
valid, the convertend and its converse are not logically the same. From the
relationship of subalternation, if “All S are P”, is true, then “some S are P”
must also be true. This means we can validly infer “ Some S are P” from “ All
S are P”. But if “ Some S are P” is true, then “Some P are S must also be
true, because those S which are P are also P which are S.

However, “ All S are P” makes assertions about all member of the class S,
but “ Some S are P” and consequently, “ Some P are S”, makes assertion
about limited members of the class S. Therefore it is said that the converses
of an A proposition “ Some P are S” is valid through conversion by limitation.
The inference is also limited in the sense that we can logically infer the
converse “ Some P are S” from its convertend “ Some S are P”, but we can
not revert from the converse to its convertend by the same process.

E: proposition
The diagram shows that the two diagrams are identical which means they
make the same assertion. Therefore the converse can be logically inferred
from the convertend.

I: proposition
The venndiagram shows the two diagrams are identical which means that they
assert exactly the same thing. Therefore, the converse can logically be inferred
from the converted and both are logically equivalent.

O:proposition
The diagram for the converted and its converse are diametrically different. This
means that the two make different assertions. Hence the converse cannot logically
be inferred from the convertend. The converse is therefore an invalid inference.
b) Obversion
The process of obversion involves interchanging the quality of a given categorical
proposition and then replacing the predicate term with its complement, or vice
versa. It involves two process, one of which is to change the quality of a given
proposition, and the other is to replace the predicate term with its complement. The
order of carrying out the two processes does not affect the logical meaning of the
final result. While a term represents a class of things, a complement of a term
represents a class of things that do not belong to the class the term represents. For
example, a class of men is a collection of all things that have the characteristics of
being man. Therefore, the complement of the class men is the collection of all
things that do not have the characteristics of being a man. The complement of the
term “men” is “non-men”. The proposition to be obverted is called obvertend and
the resultant proposition is called obverse.
Obverted Obverse

A: All S are P No S are non-P (valid)

E: No S are P All S are non -p (valid)
I: some S are P Some S are not non -P (valid)
O: Some S are not P Some P are non –P (Valid)
Venn Diagrams

A: proposition
The obvertend asserts that every S is a P. If that is so, then there can never
be an S that is not P. Therfore, it must be true than no S are non-P. This
means that in an A proposition,, the obverted and the obverse are logically
equivalent, and hence the obverse is a valid inference.
The diagram for both look exactly alike, meaning, they make the same
assertion. The use of the venn diagram therefore also verifies that the
obverse of an A proposition is a valid inference and is logically equivalent to
its obvertend.

E: Proposition
This asserts that no member of the S class is a member of the P class. This
means every member of the class of S cannot be a member of the class P,
and therefore belongs to the class of non-P. So in the obvertend is true, then
the obverse must also be true. Therefore, in the E proposition, the obverted
and the obverse logically assert the same thing, hence the obverse is a valid
inference. The venn diagram shows that the two are identicaland therefore
verifies that obverse is a valid inference.

I: proposition(Some S are p)
It asserts that there is at least one member of the S class that is a member
of the P class. But its obverse (Some S are non-P) asserts that there is at
least one member of the S class that is not a member of the non P class.
However, that member of the S class thatis not a member of the non P class
must be a member of the P class. Therefore, the obverted and the obverse
assert the same thing, hence they are logically equivalent. The obverse
therefore is a valid inference.

O: proposition (Some S are not P)

 It asserts that there is at least one member of the S class that is not a
member of the P class. But that member must be a member of the non P
class, hence its obverse , “ Some S are non-P” must also be true. Therefore,
the obverted and the obverse are logically the same. Obverse is a valid
inference. The venn diagram of the obverted and the obverse look exactly
the same, which means they express the same meaning. The obverse is
therefore validly inferred from the obverted, and they are logically
equivalent.

c) Contraposition
The inference of contraposition cab be carried out in two ways. In one way,
both the subject and the predicate terms are replaced by their complements
and the interchanged, or vice versa. The other way is to carry out a
combination of the inferences of obversion and conversion. The final
inference is the same as a contrapositive- the resultant inference in the
process of contraposition.

Method 1.

Original proposition Contrapositive

A: All S are P No non- P are non- S (valid)
E: No S are P All non–P are non -S (invalid)
I: some S are P Some non–P are not non- S (invalid)
O: Some S are not P Some non- P are non-S (Valid)

Method 2
This method starts with the inference of obversion, then conversion and then
obversion again, as follows.

Original Proposition Obversion Conversion Obversion (Contraposition)

A: All S are P No S are non-P No non-P are S All non-Pare non-S

E: No S are P All S are non-P All non-P are S All non-P are non-S

I: some S are P Some S are not non-p Some non-P are not S Some non-P are non-S

O: Some S are not P Some S are non-P Some non-P are S Some non-P are non-S

A: Proposition
It asserts that every member of S class is a member of P class. There is no
member of the S class that is a member of non-P class. But its contrapositive
asserts that every member of the non-Pclass is a member of the non-S class.
This means that there can never be any member of the non-P class that is
not a member of the non-S class. It further means that there is no member of
the non- P class that is a member of the S class. Therefore, there are no
members of both non-P and S. Conversely, no member of S class is a
member of non-P class. This is so because every member of the S class is a
member of the P class. Therefore, the contrapositive is logically equivalent to
its original proposition. Hence the contrapositive is a valid inference.

This can also be explained if we analyse the process of obversionand

conversion which are used in arriving at a contrapositive. When we obvert
an A proposition we end up with an E proposition. This first step is valid
inference. The second step is to convert the obverse. The converse of E
proposition is also a valid inference. The third step is to obvert the converse,
and this is also a valid inference. All the three steps are valid; hence the
contrapositive is a valid inference.

E: proposition
It asserts that the S class will wholly be excluded from the P class. This
means there is no member of the S class that is a member of the P class..
But the contrapositive of E proposition asserts that there are no members of
both non-P and non-S classes. It is important to note that non-P and non-S lie
outside bothclasses of P and S. This then implies that the contrapositive of E
proposition claims that no member exists outside both the classes of P and
S, or, nothing exists that is non-P or non-S. This is totally different from the
original proposition, hence the contrapositive is invalid and both are not
logically equivalent.

Using the combination of obversion and conversion,we can clearly see why
the contrapositive is invalid. An obverse of E proposition is a valid inference
of the form of A proposition. But the converse of A proposition is an invalid
inference unless it is conversion by limitation. The final step is to obvert the
converse which is a valid inference. So it is at the step of conversion, where
the inference is invalid, which makes the contrapositive invalid. However, if
the conversion is by limitation, then we have a valid contrapositive though it
is not logically equivalent to the original proposition.

I: proposition
I proposition asserts that there is at least one member of the S class that is
also a member of the P class.. But its contrapositive asserts that there is at
least one member of non-P class that is a member of non-S class. Therefore
the contrapositive makes a totally different assertion from that of the original
proposition. Hence, the contrapositive is an invalid inference.
Looking at the combination of the inferences of obversion and conversion,
we can explain why the contrapositive of I proposition is invalid. The obverse
of Iproposition is a valid inference and it is in the form of O proposition. But
the converse of O proposition is an invalid inference. The last obversion is a
valid inference. Again, the contrapositive of I proposition if invalid due to the
process of conversion.

O:proposition
The contrapositive of O proposition is a valid inference.The original
proposition asserts that there is at least one member of S class that is not a
member of the P class. The contrapositive asserts that there is at least one
member of non-P class that is not a member of non-S class. This means that
there is at least one member of non-P class which is a member of S class.
This is logically the same claim made by the original proposition. Therefore,
the contrapositive and the original proposition are logically equivalents.
Looking at the combination of obversion and conversion, the obverse of O
proposition is a valid inference and it is in the form of I proposition. The
converse of I proposition is also a valid inference. Tin the final step, the
obverse of I is also a valid inference. Therefore, all the processes are valid.

Topic Summary
In this topic you learned the meaning of “quality, quantity and distribution”,
the relationship between quality, quantity and distribution, inferences based
on the categorical propositions and the modern square of opposition.

In summary;
● A categorical proposition asserts that its subject class is wholly or
partially included in or excluded from its predicate class.
● Quantity of a categorical proposition refers to whether the proposition
refers to all or only some members of its subject class.
● Distribution refers to whether a proposition makes reference to whole
class or only some members of a class.
● A categorical proposition distributes or does not distribute its term by
virtue of the position of the term within the proposition.
● The relationship between quality, quantity and distribution is that;
● Quality of a categorical proposition determines the distribution of
its predicate term while quantity determines the distribution of the
subject term.
● Negative propositions distribute their predicate terms while
affirmative propositions do not distribute their predicate terms.
● Universal propositions distribute their subject terms while
particular propositions do not distribute their subject terms
● One of the ways of making inferences based on the categorical
propositions is derived from the logical relationship that exists between
the four forms of the propositions. This relationship can be explained
 through the use of square commonly referred to as the Traditional or
Aristotelian Square of Opposition. The square outlines all the possible
relationships that exists between the categorical propositions . These
relationships are; contrariety, subcontrariety, subalternation and
contradiction.
● Modern square of opposition is based on the modern (Boolean)
interpretation of the universal categorical propositions. In this
interpretation, the universal categorical propositions are understood
hypothetically.
● Other inferences that can be made from categorical propositions are
conversion, obversion and contraposition.

Further Reading

Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 63-86.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic activity

Draw and label the traditional square of opposition.

Topic Assignment (for self assessment)

1. In relation to categorical propositions, show the relationship between

quality, quantity and distribution.
2. Draw the traditional square of opposition and explain the logical
relationships that exist between the four forms of the categorical proposition.

3. State and explain the following inferences that can be made from
categorical propositions; conversion, obversion and contraposition.

TOPIC SIX: SYLLOGISMS AND THEIR FALLACIES

Introduction

Welcome to topic six. This topic is aimed at introducing you to syllogisms

and their fallacies. In this topic, you will learn what categorical syllogisms are
and the rule for formulating valid categorical syllogisms. Methods of
determining the validity of categorical syllogisms will be explained. Further,
you will benefit with an understanding other syllogisms.
Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. State the characteristics of categorical syllogism

ii. Explain the application of rules for valid categorical syllogisms

iii. Explain the application of venn diagrams in the determination of validity

of categorical syllogisms.

iv. Explain other forms of syllogisms

Topic Content
6.1Categorical syllogism
A syllogism is a deductive argument that has only three propositions. That is,
two premises and a conclusion.
A categorical syllogism is composed of categorical propositions. It is an
argument composed of three categorical propositions and having three
terms, each of which appears twice in the argument but once in each
proposition, and is used in the same sense in the argument. For
example,
 1. All Africans are black people
2. All Kenyans are Africans.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Kenyans are black people.

The three terms of a categorical syllogism are;

1. Major term – the predicate term of the conclusion.
2. Minor term – the subject term of the conclusion
3. Middle term – the term which appears in the two premises but does not
appear in the conclusion.
Of the two premises, one is a major and the other a minor premise. The
major premise is the one that which contain the major term and the middle
term as well. The minor premise is that which contains the minor term as
well as the middle term.

Since the middle term appears in both the major and minor premises, it links
(supposed to link) the two. This it does by establishing the relationship, in
meaning, between the major and minor premises. It is this relationship that
is supposed to expressed by the conclusion.

A categorical syllogism is said to be in standard form when its propositions

are in standard form, that is, they explicitly express the four components viz:
quantifier, subject term, copular and predicate term; and the propositions
are arranged such that the major premise is stated first, followed by the
minor and finally the conclusion. In the example provided earlier,
1. All Africans are black people
2. All Kenyans are Africans.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Kenyans are black people.
Major term – Black people
Minor term – Kenyans
Middle term –Africans
The above example qualifies in all the conditions for a standard form of
categorical syllogism.
The concept of distribution (earlier discussed) is important in determining the
validity or invalidity of any categorical syllogism. This is because some of
the rules for determination of validity/invalidity depend on this concept.

The form of a categorical syllogism is sometimes referred to as simply

syllogistic form. It completely describes a categorical syllogism and is
comprised of the mod and figure of the syllogism, Before determining the
form of a categorical syllogism, it must first be in standard form.

The mood of a categorical syllogism refers to the form of the propositions

that constitute the syllogism, ie A, E, I or O. For example,
All black people are wise.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all African are wise.
The mood of this categorical syllogism is therefore AAA.

The figure of a categorical syllogism is the structure or the position of the

middle term within the premises. The middle term can take four different
forms within the premises, hence there four figures of categorical syllogisms.
Figure 1
The middle term is the subject term of the major premise, but the predicate
term of the minor premise. Therefore the form;

M P

S M
S P

Figure 2
The middle term is the predicate term of both the premises. Therefore the
form;
 P M
S M
S P

Figure 3
The middle term is the subject term of both the premises. Therefore the
form;

M P

M S
S P
Figure 4
The middle term is the predicate term of the major premise but the subject
term of the minor premise. Therefore the form;
P M
M S
S P
For example,
All black people are wise.
All Africans are black people.
Therefore, all African are wise.
The figure is AAA-1.

6.2 Rules for Valid Categorical Syllogisms

There are rules for determining valid or invalid categorical syllogisms. A
categorical syllogism that violates any of the rules commits a fallacy. Any
syllogism/argument that commits a fallacy cannot be valid and is therefore a
bad argument.

The first four rules can be referred to as traditional rules simply because they
are based on the traditional interpretation of the categorical propositions.
Some logicians refer to them as laws for determining valid categorical
syllogism. The last rule relates to the modern interpretation of categorical
propositions.
Rule 1
The middle term must be distributed at least in one of the premises. For
example,
All human beings are rational creatures
No dogs are rational creatures
Therefore, no dogs are human beings
Any violation of this rule leads to the fallacy of undistributed middle. For
example
All animals are breathing creatures
All human beings are breathing creatures
Therefore, all human beings are animals.

Rule 2
Any term which is distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in
the premise in which it occurs. A violation of this rule results in the
commission of the fallacy of illicit process. This fallacy is of two kinds: either
illicit processof the minor term or illicit process of the major term. Either kind
of fallacy is determined by which of the terms is distributed in the conclusion
but not distributed in the premise. The following two arguments exemplify
fallacy of illicit major and fallacy of illicit minor respectively.
1. All philosophers are logicians

No engineers are philosophers

Therefore, no engineers are logicians.

2. All philosophers are poorly paid people.

All philosophers are logicians.
Therefore, all logicians are poorly paid people.
Rule 3
A categorical syllogism cannot have two negative premises. If it does, it
commits the fallacy of exclusive premises. For example,
No Kenyans are Tanzanians

No Ugandans are Tanzanians

Therefore, no Ugandans are Kenyans

Rule 4
A categorical syllogism cannot have a negative conclusion unless it has a
negative premise, in which case, it must have exactly one negative premise.
Violation of this rule leads to either of the following fallacies.
i. Fallacy of exclusive premise ( as explained in rule 3).
ii. Fallacy of inferring an affirmative conclusion from a negative
premise- a if a negative premise has a affirmative conclusion. For
example,
Some Kenyans are not good athletes.
All rugby players are good athletes.
Therefore, some rugby players are Kenyans.
iii. Fallacy of inferring a negative conclusion from affirmative premises-
if an affirmative premise has negative conclusion. For example,
All gorillas are primates
All primates are mammals
Therefore, some mammals are not gorillas.

Rule 5
A valid categorical syllogism cannot have two universal premises and a
particular conclusion. A violation of this rule leads to commission of the
existential fallacy.

6.3 Aristotelian/Traditional and Boolean/Modern interpretation of

Categorical Propositions.
According to Aristotle,(384-322 BC), all the four forms of categorical
propositions make claim about actually existing things.This interpretation
assumes that one does not speak of things which do not actually exist. Yet
we often hear people speak of things which apparently do not exist.
On the other hand Boolean interpretation holds that only the particular
categorical propositions may imply the existence of members of their class,
but not the universal categorical propositions. According to this
understanding,not all categorical propositions make reference to things that
actually exist.

Given the two interpretations, the rule that a valid syllogism cannot have two
universal premises and a particular conclusion only applies to Boolean
interpretation, an only when it comes to universal propositions. But both the
traditional and modern interpretations agree on the meaning of the
particular propositions.

The existential fallacy only occurs in syllogisms in which the categorical

propositions are given the modern interpretation.

6.4 Traditional Rules

Related Structure
Rule 1
A categorical proposition must have exactly three, and only three equivocal
terms. Violation of this rule leads to the fallacy of ambiguous middle. This is
because, it is the middle term on which it is always equivocal. For example,
All plants are living things

All factories are plants.

Therefore, all factories are living things.

Related to Distribution or quality

Rule 2
A valid categorical syllogism must have its middle term distributed in at least
one of the premises (discussed earlier).
Rule 3
No term should be distributed in the conclusion if not distributed in any of
the premises (as earlier discussed).

Related to quality
Rule 4
A valid categorical syllogism cannot have two negative premises (as
discussed earlier).

Rule 5
A valid categorical syllogism with a negative premise must have a negative
conclusion (as earlier discussed).

Rule 6
A valid categorical syllogism with a negative conclusion must have a
negative premise (as discussed earlier).
Rule 7
A valid categorical syllogism cannot have two particular premises. A
categorical syllogism with two particular premises can either have two
premises being affirmative, or both being negative. Violation of this rule
leads to at least one or a combination of the following the fallacies.
1. Undistributed middle
2. Illicit process
3. Exclusive premises
4. Inferring an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise or a
negative conclusion from a affirmative premise

Rule 8
A categorical syllogism with a particular premise must also have a particular
conclusion (as earlier discussed).

6.7 Determining the Validity of Categorical Syllogism by use of

Venn Diagram Technique.
Apart from use of rules to determine the validity of a given categorical
syllogism, Venn diagram technique can also be used. Three overlapping
circles are used to represent the three classes as reflected in the three terms
of a categorical syllogism, that is, the major term, the minor term and the
middle term Letters P, S, and M are used to stand for the three terms and
corresponding classes respectively. To use the venn diagrams, one nee to
understand the various sections of the diagrams.

SMP

SMP

There are eight regions on the diagrams. The region marked SMP with a bar
above M and P represents where there can be a member of S but neither a
member of M nor P.

The region marked SMP with a bar above M represents a region where there
can be a member both S and P and not M.

The region marked SMP with a bar above S and M represents a region where
there can be a member of P but neither S nor M.

The region marked SMP represents a region where there can be a member of
S, M and P.
SMP with a bar above P represents a region where there can be a member of
both S and M and not P.

The region marked SMP with a bar above S represents a region where there
can be a member of M and P and not S.

SMP with a bar above S and P represents a region where there can be a
member of M but a member of neither S nor P.

The region marked SMP with a bar above S, M and P represents a region
where there can be a member of neither S, M, nor P.

Procedure of Venn diagramming and interpretation

1. Only premises are to be presented on the diagrams.

2. Where one premise is universal and the other is particular always
begin diagramming with the universal premise.
3. Universal premise is represented by shading while a particular is
represented by an X.
4. Conclusion is never represented on the venn diagram since in any valid
argument, the conclusion does not express a meaning different from
the one expressed by the premises.
5. Once the two premises have been diagrammed, then one needs only
to check whether or not what the conclusion asserts has been
expressed by the premises collectively. If it is the case, the syllogism is
valid, and if not then the syllogism is invalid.
6. X is circled when its existence is not inferred directly from a premise
but only assumed.

Examples

1. IAI-3
Schema
All M are S
Some S are P
 2. EAE-1
Schema
No M are P
All S are M
No S are P

6.8 Other Syllogisms

a) Hypothetical Syllogism
Is a syllogism which is composed of hypothetical propositions, or a
hypothetical proposition as a major premise and a categorical proposition as
its minor premise and conclusion.An hypothetical proposition is one which
asserts a relationship between a condition and a result. It is always
expressed in the form of “If P then Q”. Hypothetical syllogisms are divided
into 2:
1. Pure hypothetical
A pure hypothetical syllogism has all the propositions as hypothetical.
The following are valid forms of pure hypothetical syllogisms.

i. If one is wise then one is mortal

If one is moral one is Godly
, if one is wise then one is Godly
ii. If one is Kenyan then one is African
If one is a Ugandan then one is African
Therefore, If one is a Kenyan then one is a Ugandan

2. Mixed hypothetical
In mixed hypothetical syllogism, the major premise is a hypothetical
proposition while the other premise and the conclusion are categorical
propositions.
The following are valid forms of mixed hypothetical syllogism.

i. If one is a Kenyan then one is an African

One is a Kenyan
Therefore one is an African.
ii. If one is a Kenyan then one is an African
But Oriare is a Kenyan
Therefore, Oriare is an African

However, there are invalid forms of mixed hypothetical syllogisms. For

example,

i. If one is a Kenyan then one is an African.

But Latasha is an African
Therefore, Latasha is a Kenyan.
The above form of argument is invalid and is said to commit the fallacy of
affirming the consequent.

ii. If one is a Kenyan then one is an African

But KwasiWiredu is not a Kenyan
Therefore, KwasiWiredu is not an African.

The argument form is invalid and is said to commit a formal fallacy of

denying the antecedent.

b) Disjunctive Syllogism
(Refer to earlier notes on disjunctive propositions)
Disjunctive syllogisms are mixed in the sense that the syllogism has both
disjunctive propositions and categorical propositions. The following are valid
forms of disjunctive syllogisms.
i. A is either B or C
A is not C
Therefore, A is B
Or

A is either B or C

A is not B

Therefore, A is C

Illustration

Oriare is either a Nigerian or a Kenyan

But he is not a Nigerian

Therefore, he is a Kenyan.

However, the following forms of disjunctive syllogisms are invalid.

A is either B or C.

A is B
 Therefore, A is not C

Or

A is either B or C

A is C

Therefore, A is not B.

Illustration

That man we saw was either drunk or sick

Ah! He was drunk

Therefore, he was not sick

Or

That man we saw was either drunk or sick

Ah! He was sick

Therefore, he was not drunk.

c) Conjunctive Syllogisms
(Refer to earlier notes on conjunctions)
A conjunctive syllogism is that in which the major premise is a
conjunction,but one of whose part is negated. The conjunctive premise in a
conjunctive syllogism always denies that both the conjuncts are true. It is still
possible that both can be false. The following are valid forms of conjunctive
syllogisms.
A cannot be both B and C
But A is B
Therefore, A is not C
Or
A cannot be both B and C
But A is C
 Therefore, A is not B.
Illustration
One can not be both a Christian and a muslim
But Sheila is a Christian
Therefore, Sheila is not a Muslim
Or
One cannot be both a Christian and a Muslim
But Sheila is a Muslim
Therefore, Sheila is not a Christian

However, the following are the invalid forms of conjunctive syllogisms.

A cannot be both B and C

But A is not B

Therefore, A is C.

OR

A cannot be both B and C

But A is not C

Therefore, A is B.

Illustration

One cannot be both a Christian and a muslim

But Sheila is not a Christian
Therefore, Sheila is a Muslim
Or
One cannot be both a Christian and a muslim
But Sheila is not a Muslim
Therefore, Sheila is Christian
Topic Summary
In this topic you learnedthe characteristics of categorical syllogism,
application of rules for valid categorical syllogisms, application of venn
diagrams in the determination of validity of categorical syllogisms and other
forms of syllogisms.
In summary;

● A categorical syllogism is an argument composed of three

categorical propositions and having three terms (major, minor and
middle), each of which appears twice in the argument but once in
each proposition, and is used in the same sense in the argument.
● A categorical syllogism is said to be in standard form when its
propositions are in standard form, that is, they explicitly express the
four components viz: quantifier, subject term, copular and predicate
term; and the propositions are arranged such that the major premise
is stated first, followed by the minor and finally the conclusion.
● The rules for valid categorical syllogisms are;
▪ The middle term must be distributed at least in one of the
premises
▪ Any term which is distributed in the conclusion must also
be distributed in the premise in which it occurs.
▪ A categorical syllogism cannot have two negative
premises.
▪ A categorical syllogism cannot have a negative conclusion
unless it has a negative premise, in which case, it must
have exactly one negative premise.
▪ A valid categorical syllogism cannot have two universal
premises and a particular conclusion.
▪ Traditional rules (laws) for determining valid categorical syllogisms
are related to structure distribution or quantity and quality.
 ▪ The validity of categorical propositions can also be determined by
use of venn diagrams.
▪ Other forms of syllogisms include hypothetical syllogism (pure and
mixed), disjunctive syllogisms and conjunctive syllogisms.

Further Reading

Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 87-137.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J,.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

TopicActivity

Construct a venndiagram from the syllogistic form below and determine its
validity.

IAE-1
Schema
Some M are P
All S are M
No S are P

Topic Assignment (for self assessment)

1. Discuss the various kinds of syllogisms.
2. Analyze the three terms of a categorical syllogism.
3. State and explain the rules for valid categorical syllogisms
TOPIC SEVEN: INFORMAL FALLACIES

Introduction

Welcome to topic seven. This topic is aimed at introducing you to informal

fallacies. In this topic, you will learn the three forms of informal fallacies,
namely, fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption and fallacies of
ambiguity.

Topic Time

• Compulsory online reading, activities, self-assessments and practice

exercises [3 hours]

• Optional further reading [1.5 hours]

• Total student input [4.5 hours]

Topic Learning Requirements

• Participation in one chat (at least 5 entries)

• At least two elaborate contributions to the discussion topic. You may also

start your own discussion thread.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this topic you should be able to:

i. Define “informal fallacies”

ii. State the different informal fallacies

iii. Explain the application of formal fallacies

Topic Content
7.1 Introduction
A fallacy is a logical error in reasoning. It occurs when the premises of a
given argument do not support the conclusion they are purported to support.
It is a lack of coherence between the claim or the meaning of the
premises taken together and the conclusion of a given argument. An
argument that commits a fallacy is sometimes called a fallacy or fallacious
argument.
A fallacy should be avoided mainly because it fails in its purpose, which is to
advance a justified claim- a conclusion. There are two kinds of fallacies:
Formal and informal. Formal fallacies are reasoning that deviate from the
established correct forms of reasoning. To detect a formal fallacy simply
requires an examination of any given argument against the many known
correct forms. On the other hand, an informal fallacy emanates from
inconsistent meanings within an argument. To detect an informal fallacy
requires an interpretation of an argument and understanding the meaning.
Where the meaning of the premises collectively does not justify the
conclusion, then an informal fallacy is committed.

Informal fallacies can be categorized into three: Fallacies of relevance,

fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity.

7.2 Fallacies of Relevance

Also referred to as fallacies of irrelevance, since in them, the conclusion is
based on premises which are irrelevant to their claims. In the fallacies of
irrelevance there is an assumption that certain given premises or
considerations are relevant to certain conclusions when in fact that is not the
case.

a) Argument from Ignorance- Argumentum ad Ignorantium

This fallacy occurs whenever a conclusion or a view is claimed to be true or
correct simply because its contrary has not been proved. For example,
From time immemorial, many philosophers especially logicians have been
trying to disapprove of God’s existence but to no avail. Therefore, it is
obviously true that God exists.

Or on the contrary,
The non-existence of God can no longer be doubted given that the
theologians have been trying for centuries to logically prove His existence
but without any trace of success.

b) Appeal to people- Argumentum ad Populum

This fallacy occurs whenever an argument plays upon people’s needs, by
exciting their emotions and enthusiasm in order to have it or conclusion
accepted. In this fallacy, premises are used that are not relevant to the
conclusion drawn from them. They are used in such a way that manipulates
the beliefs and emotions of a listener or reader so that he/ she accept the
irrelevant conclusion.
Appeal to people may take different forms.

i. Arousing a mob’s mentality- may happen by use of certain phrases or

acts like patriotism, defender of workers, waving of flags and
playing blaring music. This kind of appeal is commonly used in
public speech making and in advertisements. It is sometimes called
appeal to bandwagon fallacy.
ii. Bandwagon argument- is commonly used in advertisement whenever
advertiser appeal to emotions to the effect that the products are the
best and should be purchased because they are either new, sexy or
best. For example,
Of course you want to buy a Toyota Corolla. Why 90%of
Kenyans motorist drive it !.
iii. Appeal to vanity- In this form, certain products or commodities are
associated with certain celebrities or personages.

c) Appeal to Force
It is based on the belief that “might makes right”. Sometimes it is called
appeal to stick or appeal to force. In this fallacy, one makes it clear to a real
or possible opponent that if s/he does not agree to his/her position then
certain harm or undesirable consequence will be meted out to him/her.
d) Appeal to Pity
This fallacy is committed when one evokes pity or emotions from listeners,
reader or audience by appealing to his/her pitiable or miserable condition in
order for the listener, reader or audience to accept his/her claim, conclusion
or view.

e) Appeal to Authority
This fallacy is committed when appeal is made to an illegitimate or
inappropriate authority in order to have a conclusion or view accepted. This
appeal may be due to cited authority, lack of relevant expertise, bias or
prejudice, a motive to lie or lack of ability to accurately perceive certain
situations.

f) Argument against the person.

This fallacy occurs when instead of one addressing an argument presented,
s/he addresses himself/herself to the one who presents the argument. Some
logicians call it Genetic fallacy. This argument is a fallacious attack because
one does not present evidence against the conclusion one intends to deny,
but instead attacks the person who presents the argument. It has 3 forms.
i. Argument ad hominem abusive- one disparages the character
and raises questions on the integrity of the opponent in order to
deny intelligence, reasonableness or soundness of his argument.
ii. Argument ad hominem circumstantial- Here opponents’
circumstances are used fallaciously as a reason the reject the
conclusion of an opponents argument.
iii. Argument ad Hominem you Too- Is committed when one
presents an opponent as a hypocrite or as arguing in bad faith by
pointing out certain features, conducts or practices in the
opponents life which contradicts or is inconsistent with one’s
argument.
g) Fallacy of Accident
Is committed whenever a general rule or principle is applied to an
exceptional situation to which the rule does not apply.

h) Fallacy of Converse Accident

Sometimes it is called fallacy of hasty generalization. Together with the
fallacy of accident, they occur due to hasty or careless application of rules or
principles in exceptional situations. This fallacy is committed whenever there
is an illegitimate generalization of a special exceptional rule.

i) Fallacy of False Cause

This fallacy is committed whenever a conclusion of an argument is based on
a mistaken connection between its conclusion and the premises. This
connection is only presupposed, mistaken or is only imagined but not
established. This fallacy sometimes takes 3 froms.
i. Non causa pro causa- Literally means : not cause for the cause”.
It occurs whenever what is actually not the cause of an event is
taken or presented as the cause.
ii. Post hoc ergo propter hoc which literally means” after this,
therefore an account of this”. It occurs when when a conclusion
is mistakenly inferred from or taken to be caused by a preceding
event simply by virtue of its precedence.
iii. Oversimplified Cause- It is committed whenever there are
several or chain of factors acting as a cause to an event but an
arguer singles out or selects only one of the factors which is then
presented as the cause of the event.

j) The fallacy of missing the point

Sometimes it is called the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. It literally means
“ignorance of the proof. It is committed when the premises of a given
argument necessarily point to a specific conclusion but the arguer infers a
different conclusion but which appears to be somehow related to the correct
one to which, logically, the premises point.

K) The Red Herring Fallacy-

It occurs when one diverts the attention to a totally different issue by
changing the subject or focus of an opponent’s argument and then goes on
to draw conclusion based on the new subject or, after changing the subject
of the opponents argument one simply presumes that his/her conclusion has
been established.

l) The Fallacy of Slippery Slope

This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer presents a conclusion based on an
unlikely chain reaction. In this fallacy, one argues in such a way that appears
certain that the chain reaction will take place, and the conclusion of such
reactions always point to a very serious and undesirable consequence. The
fallacy presents a situation as being on a “slippery slope” such that any
wrong step or mistake inevitably triggers the situation rolling down the
slippery slope.
m)The fallacy of Weak Analogy
This fallacy is committed whenever an arguer presents an analogous
argument in a case where the analogy is not strong enough to warrant the
inference of the asserted conclusion.

Fallacies of Presumption
In the fallacies of presumption, the premises presumethe very conclusion
thattheyare supposed to prove or justify.

n) The Fallacy of Begging the Question

This literally means postulation of the meaning. To postulate means to use
as true a premise whose truth is contentious as a basis for a conclusion. To
be g the question is to assume the truth of what one is to prove in the effort
to prove it. This fallacy occurs whenever the premises of an argument
assume the truth of the conclusion they are meant to prove.

o) The Fallacy of False Dichotomy

It is sometimes called the fallacy of false dilemma or fallacy of false
bifurcation. The error of this fallacy emanates from its mistaken disjunction.
That is formulation of one of its premises is mistaken in a situation where
there is a possibility of more than two alternatives. The fallacy occurs when
an arguer uses premises one of which presents only two alternative where
there are in fact more than the two alternatives.; and the other premise
asserts the unacceptability of one of the two alternatives, hence, rules it out.

p) The fallacy of Complex Question

The fallacy involves asking multiple questions as a single question. The
question is asked in such a way that it presupposes the truth of the
conclusion but which has not been established. By answering the apparent
single question, one accepts also the presupposed truth of some conclusion
which if put otherwise, one would not accept.

q) Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence

This fallacy occurs whenever an arguer infers a conclusion based on some
selected evidence and ignores some other evidence that outweigh the one(s)
considered.

Fallacies of Ambiguity
Arguments in this category use ambiguous terms or phrases which then
render them defective and hence fallacious.

r) Fallacy of Equivocation
Equivocation simply means using a term or a word which has more than one
possible meaning in such a way that it is not clear which of the possible is
intended. This fallacy occurs when an arguer uses a term equivocally in a
premise and then infers a conclusion based on one of the possible meanings
of the equivocated word.

s) Fallacy of Amphiboly
Amphiboly can simply be understood to mean an ambiguity of a phrase or
expression. This comes about due to improper grammatical construction
which therefore makes its meaning indeterminate.

t) Fallacy of Composition
This fallacy occurs when there is an illegitimate transference of attributes of
parts or members to a whole or collectivity. The fallacy of composition has
two forms. One is where the attributes of parts are wrongly or illegitimately
transferred to the whole.

u) The fallacy of Division

This fallacy is seen as the opposite of the fallacy of composition. It is
committed whenever one wrongly or illegitimately transfers what is true of
the whole to parts or members. This fallacy has two forms: One is where one
argues illegitimately or wrongly that what is true of the whole must also be
true of its parts.

Topic Summary
In this topic you learned the meaning of “informal fallacies”, the different
informal fallacies and the application of formal fallacies.

In summary;

▪ A fallacy is a logical error in reasoning. It occurs when the premises of

a given argument do not support the conclusion they are purported to
support.
 ▪ A fallacy should be avoided mainly because it fails in its purpose, which
is to advance a justified claim- a conclusion.
▪ An informal fallacy emanates from inconsistent meanings within an
argument. To detect an informal fallacy requires an interpretation of an
argument and understanding the meaning.
▪ Informal fallacies can be categorized into three: Fallacies of relevance,
fallacies of presumption and fallacies of ambiguity.
▪ In fallacies of relevancethere is an assumption that certain given
premises or considerations are relevant to certain conclusions when in
fact that is not the case.
▪ In fallacies of presumptionthe premises presume the very conclusion
that they are supposed to prove or justify.
▪ In fallacies of ambiguityarguments use ambiguous terms or phrases
which then render them defective and hence fallacious.

Further Reading

Mandatory

Nyarwath O. (2010) Traditional Logic: An Introduction, 2nd edition. Nairobi:

Consolata Institute of Philosophy. Pages 139-168.

Optional

Baum, R. (1996). Logic, 4th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College
publishers.

Hurley, P. J.(1991) A concise Introduction to Logic, 4th edition. Belmont:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Topic Activity

Identify any 15 fallacies from the puzzle below.

B S T S S M N S S N S C P X X Z R D M Y
I E A P P E A L T O P E O P L E N E S M

S Q D I V I S I O N O P T I C S L Y L O

Y U H S C O M P O S I T I O N G K W I T

L I O S T R A W M A N E X B M E S H P O

O V M E N T U M R E D H E R R I N G P H

B O I M E T I C D K J E S I I N G S E C

I C N W S Y T I P O T L A E P P A R I

H A E F F E C T W E A K A N A L O G Y D

P T M D A C A P P E A L T O F O R C S E

M I T B A N D W A G O N K U Z E S S L S

A O D D I F A L S E C A U S E T U M O L

T N W E A K A N A L O G Y M K X Z P P A

E E B W L K M O P W R D F G M K Y B E F

Topic Assignment (for self-assessment)

1. Define the term “fallacy” and discuss the formal and informal fallacies.