FORMAL LOGIC OR REASONING Formal logic is concerned with how the components of an argument relate to each other.

her. It focuses on the formal rules for the arrangement of statements that may guarantee the validity of an argument. Formal logic deals with propositions. Propositions are defined as statements capable of being unequivocally true or false (unlike other speech acts, such as questions, promises, commands, challenges, etc.) Some propositions are premises, and some are conclusions. Premises are b asic reasons/assertions which are often presented without themselves being supported by other reasons/assertions. Premises are combined with other premises in order to reach conclusions. Formal logic focuses on whether the conclusion follows from the premises. If it does, a chain of reasoning is said to be valid. That is, it has a form such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

1) DEDUCTIVE REASONING Concept Deductive Reasoning is one of the two basic forms of valid reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. (Conclusions are reached from general statements) The basic idea of deductive reasoning is that if something is true of a class of things in general, this truth applies to all members of that class. Syllogism - is a form of logical reasoning that consists out of 3 parts: the subject, the predicate and the middle term. The subject stands for, as the word already indicates, the central theme in the syllogism. This is the keyword of the syllogism. Predicate is another word for a specific feature connected to the subject. The last part is the middle term which consists out of all the remaining information in a syllogism. Each syllogism can be classified using these three terms, resulting in a valid or invalid conclusion of the syllogism. CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM - is a type of syllogism is an argument consisting of exactly three categorical propositions (two premises and a conclusion) in which there appear a total of exactly three categorical terms, each of which is used exactly twice. Parts:

Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is the major term (i.e., the predicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, it is the minor term (the subject) of the conclusion. The middle term is that which appears in the premises but not in the conclusion. For example: Major premise: All humans are mortal. Minor premise: All students are humans. Conclusion: All students are mortal. 1st figure 2nd figure P Mid S Mid SP 3rd figure Mid P Mid S SP 4th figure P Mid Mid S SP

Major premise Minor premise Conclusion

Mid P S Mid SP

RULES AND FALLACIES Rule1: The middle term must be distributed at least once. -If the middle term is not distributed at least once, the argument commits the undistributed middle fallacy. The middle term is what connects the major and the minor term. Example: All diligent persons are human All students are human All students are diligent persons

Rule 2: If a term is distributed in the conclusion, then it must be distributed in a premise. - If the minor term is distributed in the conclusion, but is not distributed in the premise, then the argument commits the illicit minor fallacy. If the major term is distributed in the conclusion, but is not distributed in the premise, then the argument commits the illicit major fallacy. Examples: Illicit major D U All [radicals] are [subversives] D D No [Republicans] are [subversives] D D No [Republicans] are [radicals]

Illicit minor D U All [good citizens] are [nationalists] D U All [good citizens] are [progressives] D U All [progressives] are [nationalists]

Rule 3: Two negative premises are not allowed. Fallacy: Exclusive premises - If the premises are both negative, then the relationship between S and P is denied. The conclusion cannot, therefore, say anything in a positive manner. That information goes beyond what is contained in the premises. Example: No fish are mammals Wolves are not fish Wolves are not mammals Rule 4: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise. Fallacy: Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, or drawing a negative conclusion from an affirmative premise. Example: Some animals are not dogs Cats are animals Cats are dogs Rule 5: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular. Fallacy: Existential fallacy Example: All mammals are animals All tigers are mammals Some tigers are animals

CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM -is one whose major premise is a conditional proposition 2 types: 1. Mixed conditional (the minor premise is a categorical proposition) 2. Purely conditional (both of whose premises are conditional propositions) 1. Mixed Conditional Syllogism - the if clause is called the antecedent; then clause is the consequent Valid form: -affirm the antecedent in the minor premise and affirm the consequent in the conclusion -negate the consequent in the minor premise and negate the antecedent in the conclusion Example: Major premise: If you have appendicitis, then you are very sick.

Minor Premise: (affirm antecedent) You have appendicitis (negate consequent) You are not sick

Conclusion: (affirm consequent) Therefore, you are very sick. (negate antecedent) Therefore, you do not have appendicitis.

Invalid form: -affirm the consequent in the minor premise and affirm the antecedent in the conclusion -negate the antecedent in the minor premise and negate the consequent in the conclusion

2. Purely Condition Syllogism - has both conditional propositions for both its premises; has exactly the same forms with mixed conditional except that the condition expressed must be retained in the conclusion. Examples: If A is a B, then C is D; But if X is Y, the A is B; Therefore, if X is Y, then C is D. If it rains, we will not have a class. If we don't have a class, we don't need to go to school. Therefore, if it rains, we dont need to go to school.

DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM -a syllogism having a disjunctive statement for one of its premises; is one that represents various alternatives and asserts that an indeterminate one of them is true. It consists of two or more members joined by the conjunctions either...or. It is sometimes called an alternative proposition. Kinds: 1. Strict Disjunctive - only one member is true and others are false. If all the members excepts one are false, the remaining member must be true; and if one is true, remaining members must be false. 2. Broad Disjunctive - atleast one member is true but more than one may be true. 1. Strict Rule 1: If the minor premise posits one or more members of the major premise, the conclusion must sublate each of the other members. It is either A or B. It is either A or B or C. But it is A. But it is A. Therefore it is not B. Therefore it is neither B nor C. Rule 2: If the minor premise sublates one or more of the members of the major premise, the conclusion posits the remaining members, one of which must be true. It is either A or B. It is either A or B or C. But it is not A. But it is not A. Therefore it is B. Therefore it is either B or C. 2. Broad disjunctive - If at least one alternative among those enumerated in the major premise is true but more may be true. In a disjunctive syllogism in the broad sense, the major premise is a disjunctive proposition in the broad sense. There is only one valid procedure: to sublate one (or more but not all) of the members in the minor and posit the remaining member or (members) in the conclusion. If more than one member remains, the conclusion itself must be a disjunctive proposition in the broad sense. It is either A or B or C or D at least one of them But it is neither A nor B; Therefore it is either C or D at least one of them.

CONJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM -a syllogism whose major premise is a conjunctive proposition, the minor premise posits one member of the major, and whose conclusion sublates the other member of the major. There is only one valid procedure: to posit one member in the minor premise and sublate the other in the conclusion. Examples: The criminal could not be in Manila and Baguio at The criminal could not be in Manila and Baguio at the same time; the same time; But he was in Manila; But he was not in Manila; Therefore he could not be in Baguio. Therefore he was in Baguio.

2) INDUCTIVE REASONING Concept nd 2 basic form of valid reasoning Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of [4] the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true. Deductive vs. Inductive Reasoning Induction forms conclusions that reach beyond the premises (or evidence), beyond the current boundaries of knowledge, thus making inductive conclusions probable rather than certain. At the heart of inductive thinking is the "inductive leap," the stretch of imagination that draws a reasonable inference from the available information. Because inductive conclusions are only probable, they can exist along a range of probability and can be made stronger or weaker. Deduction, on the other hand, operates by discovering the necessary implications of established truths; that is, established generalizations are applied either to other generalizations or to specific cases in order to discover new conclusions that necessarily follow. In a deductive argument, if the premises are true and if the argument is valid (argued in accord with the rules), then the conclusion must also be true. The syllogism is a typical way that deductive arguments are structured. Types: Inductive Generalization Argument by Analogy Causal Argument

INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION -An inductive generalization generalizes from a sample to an entire class. Using the sample to reach a conclusion about a target class. -This involves forming a generalization based on a collection of evidence Subtypes: a. Sample to Group - an examination of a set of particular cases leads to the conclusion that what is true of a sample is true of the whole group. -include categorizing information and who looking for similarities, and who grouping things together Example: After examining a sample of twenty kinds of apples, I discover that they all have seeds, so I conclude that all apples probably have seeds. b. Evidence to Conclusion - a collection of specific evidence points toward a single conclusion. - Police detectives, accident investigators, literary scholars, historians, and all those looking for the meaning of miscellaneous data, effects, or causes, use this kind of thinking. Other examples might include the source of disease, the guilt or innocence of the accused, the influence of early music on a composer. Example: I walk into a parking garage and look at a particular car and discover that the hood of the car is warm, there is wet mud on the tires, and muddy tracks lead in from outside where it is now raining. These individual pieces of evidence, working together, allow me to conclude that this car was driven recently. In term papers and articles and many other arguments the inductive generalization is presented first, as the thesis, and then backed by the specific proofs: but this is simply a matter of form or order, and the piece is still an inductive argument. (For example, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson first accuses King George III of being a tyrant--the thesis--and then lists more than two dozen evidences in support of this thesis or conclusion.) Fallacies of inductive generalizations: a. Hasty generalization: a generalization based on a sample too small to be representative. -also known as the fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, generalization from the particular, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction Example: As uncle smoked five packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen, and lived until age 80. Therefore, smoking really cant be that bad for you Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man. b. Biased generalization (biased sample): a generalization about an entire class based on a biased sample. - Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is. (committed when the sample is biased)

- This differs from the hasty generalization fallacy, where the biased sample is specifically chosen from a select group, and the small sample is just a random sample, but too small to get any accurate information. Example: Pastor Z: People are turning to God everywhere! 9 out of 10 people I interviewed said that they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Juan: Where did you find these people you interviewed? Pastor Z: In my church. Explanation: Pastor Z has drawn a conclusion about religious beliefs from people everywhere based on people he has interviewed in his church. Thats like concluding that the world likes to dance naked in front of s trangers after interviewing a group of strippers.

Example2/illustration: Sample S is from population P (S is possibly bias); conclusion C then is drawn from sample S about population P.

Hasty v. Biased Generalization (example) X is true for A. X is true for B. X is true for C. X is true for D. Therefore, X is true for E, F, G, etc.; (This example becomes biased generalization fallacy if it were conducted on a place or person like that with Pastor Z)

ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY -is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions. - an analogical argument is an argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect because they are alike in other respects -When a person has a bad experience with a food product and decides not to buy anything further from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning. It is also implicit in much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats typically proceed on the basis that some physiological similarities between rats and humans entails some further similarity (e.g. reaction to a drug). Example: Attacking your next-door neighbors, killing them and taking their property is immoral. War involves going into a neighboring country, killing people and taking their property. Therefore, war is immoral. Fallacy: False Analogy (Premise 1) Object X and object Y are similar in having properties in A and B (Premise 2) Object X has property in C (Conclusion) Object Y also has property in C

CAUSAL ARGUMENTS - In causal arguments, the truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Rather, causal arguments have varying degrees of strength, that is, the truth of their premises provides a conclusion that is true with some degree of probability or likelihood.

Causal Claims and Arguments A causal claim is one that asserts that there is a relationship between two events such that one is the effect of the other. A causal claim takes the form of "x causes y," with x referring to the cause and y referring to the effect. A causal argument provides the premises to support a conclusion about a cause and effect relationship. Example: If you go to a party instead of studying for an exam, you might say that going to the party caused you to perform badly on the exam; An airplane crashes and teams of experts study all the wreckage and other evidence to determine the cause of the crash.

Fallacies: There are many ways to make errors in causal reasoning. 1) Post hoc ergo propter hoc - This Latin phrase literally means, "after this, therefore because of this). X follows Y. Therefore, X causes Y. (The sequence of things proves cause.) Example: The man pulled out a gun. A shot was fired. Therefore the man fired the shot. You used the telephone and then it stopped working. You broke the phone. I am feeling very unwell. It must have been the meal last night. - Just because something follows something else, this is not sufficient evidence to prove true cause and effect. This temporal relationship may simply be coincidence. Coincidence is often related to superstition -- hence saying 'bless you' when someone sneezes (it is assumed that sneezing lays a person open to spiritual attack) 2) Assuming a common cause - We can also make errors in causal reasoning when we look too hard for a common cause. Example: Imagine that on my way to work I receive a speeding ticket, and later in the day, I fall and sprain my ankle. When I get home I am informed that I had a check to bounce. Then I remember that I saw a black cat the day before and conclude that it must be true that they bring bad luck. 3) Ignoring a common cause In the case of Assuming a Common Cause, one assumes a false cause; in this case, a real cause is ignored. Sometimes we mistakenly identify one event as the cause of another without recognizing that they both may be the effect of a common cause. If I stay up watching television until one oclock instead of studying for an exam, and then I do poorly on the exam, I might say that my fatigue caused me to do badly on the exam. In fact there, is a common cause, watching television that caused me to stay up late and to do poorly on the exam. . 4) Reversed causation - Another typical error in reasoning about cause and effects is to mistake the cause for the effect and the effect for the cause. Example: If I argue that spending more money on education will improve the economy because after all the countires that spend the most on education have the strongest economies, I may have reversed the cause and effect. -It may be that nations with the strongest economies are able to spend more money on education. Some say that the increased violence in the media causes more people to commit violent deeds, while others argue that the increased violence in movies and television is caused by the fact that we are becoming a more violent society.