A LITTLE CATEGORICAL/

PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC

Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong 1

 Validity

 A valid deductive argument is an

argument in which it is impossible for all
premises to be true and the conclusion
false.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong 2

  Deductive argument

valid invalid

Sound Unsound

Sound: vững vàng, mạnh ; unsound: không vững vàng, không mạnh

Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong 3

 Inductive argument

strong weak

Cogent Uncogent Cogent: thuyết phục

Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong 4

 CATEGORICAL LOGIC

VENN DIAGRAMS

5 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Categorical statements

 A categorical statement makes a claim about

the relationship between two or more categories
or classes of things.

Standard-form categorical statement:

 All S are P

 No S are P

 Some S are P

 Some S are not P

6 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Translating into standard
categorical form
For simplicity, you may, if you wish, assign variables to each
of the three terms.
CD S

All caffeinated drinks are stimulants.

C All forms of coffee have caffeine.

All forms of coffee are stimulants.

All CD are S
All C are CD
All C are S
7 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Translating into standard
categorical form

 The standard categorical forms has four basic parts:

1. Begin with the word all, no, or some : quantifiers.
2. Have a subject term (S): a word or phrase that names a
class or that serves as the grammatical subject of the
sentence.
3. Have a predicate term (P): a word or phrase that names a
class or that serves as the subject complement of the
sentence.
4. Have a copula (linking verb): some form of the verb “to be”

8 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 tips

 Rephrase all nonstandard subject and

predicate categorical form:
 EX:

 All actor are vain

All actor are vain people

 Some roses are white

Some roses are white flowers

9 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 tips

 Rephrase all nonstandard verb: (are/ are not)

 EX:

 Some students walk to school

Some students are persons who walk to school

 All the northern countries were flooded

All the northern countries are places that were

flooded

10 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 tips

 Fill in any unexpressed quantifiers

 EX:

 Californians are health nuts

Some Californians are health nuts

 Texans are friendly

Some Texans are friendly

(Not: All Texans are friendly)

11 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 tips
 Translate singular statement as all or no statement:
 A singular statement makes a claim about a particular
person, place or thing.
 EX
 Paris is the capital of France:
All places identical with Paris are places that are the
capital of France.

 An wasn’t born in HCMC.

No person identical with An are persons who were born in
HCMC
12 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 tips
 Translate stylistic variants into the appropriate
categorical form:
 Stylistic variants: different way of saying
essentially the same thing.
 Common stylistic variants of “ All S are P”
- Every S is a P
- Whoever is an S is a P
- Any S is P
- The only S are P
- Something is an S only if it is a P

13 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 tips

 Common stylistic variants of “ No S are P”

- No P are S
- S are not P

- Not one who is an S is a P

- All S are not P

 Common stylistic variants of “ Some S are P”

Many S are P; a few S a P; Some P are S

 Common stylistic variants of “ Some S are not P”

A few S are not P, Not all S are P

14 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Categorical Syllogisms

 A syllogism is a three line deductive arguments that

consists of two premises and a conclusion. (All
statement are categorical statements)
EX: No islands are part of the mainland and Hawaii
is an island. Therefore, Hawaii is not on the
mainland.

Some modems are cable connections and some

cable connections are digital. Thus, some
modems are digital
15 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram

 The beauty of the Venn Diagram is that it

allows you to determine whether a
categorical syllogism is valid or invalid
and to do so with absolute assurance.

 Since we know how important it is to be

able to test the validity of syllogisms, it
is worth the time to learn to use Venn
Diagrams correctly.

16 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Venn Diagram

A Venn Diagram consists of three overlapping circles which

represent the three terms in the syllogism and their relationship
with each other.
CD
For convenience it is best to
be consistent in assigning
terms to the circles. The
subject term of the
S conclusion is assigned the
C
lower left circle, and the
All CD are S predicate term of the
All C are CD conclusion is assigned the
All C are S lower right circle.
17 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram

As you work through this tutorial, realize that what

you draw in the Venn Diagram represents exactly
what is in the premises of the syllogism; nothing
more and nothing less.

There are three steps in this process: CD

1. Draw premise one.

2. Draw premise two.
3. Check the validity. C S

18 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Venn Diagram CD

So, to represent “All CD

are S” we focus on the
CD and S circles only.
Our rule is to shade
EMPTY areas.
C S
Imagine that we don’t know
how many things are inside
these circles, or where exactly
they are inside the circles, but All CD are S
we know that all the things in All C are CD
CD are also in S. All C are S
19 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram

Look at the first premise and then

at the shading. Since we know all
CD are in S, we know the rest of
CD is empty.

Now draw premise 2. All the

items in C are also in CD.
Thus the rest of C is empty All CD are S
and should be shaded. All C are CD
All C are S
20 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram
All CD are S
All C are CD
Now for step 3. We’ve drawn each All C are S
premise exactly and can now check
for validity. If valid, the conclusion
will be shown in the drawing to be
necessarily true.

If the drawing allows for the

possibility of the conclusion
being false then the syllogism is
invalid. What do you think? Valid
or Invalid?
21 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram

This is a valid syllogism. The

drawing clearly shows that
the conclusion is necessarily
true. All C are indeed S.

The only area of C that is not

empty is the part that is in S.
All CD are S
All C are CD
All C are S
22 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example
E R

All educated people respect books.

Some bookstore personnel are not truly educated.
Some bookstore personnel don’t respect books.
B
Translated into All E are R
standard form Some B are not E
Some B are not R
Be clear that:
E = Educated people
R = People who respect books.
B = Bookstore personnel
23 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example

All E are R
Some B are not E E

Some B are not R

Draw the first premise.

All E are inside R, so we
know that the rest of E is
empty. We represent this B R

empty area by shading it.

24 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Venn Diagram - Example
All E are R
Some B are not E
E
Some B are not R X
Should the “X” go here?

Now the second premise.

We read “some” as “at least
one” and represent it with an X X
“X.” So we want to put an X B R
inside the B circle but outside
of the E circle. Or here?
We want to say exactly what the premises say, but no more.
25 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 All E are R
Venn Diagram - Example Some B are not E
Some B are not R

Think about it. If we opt for E

the blue X, we are saying
“some B are not R,” but this
is not in the premises and we
can’t draw something that is
not in the premises. Likewise the X? X?
red X would say, “Some B are R,”
B R
and this is not in the premises either.
What we need is an “X” on the line which will mean that
“some B” are on one side of the line or the other, or both, but
we’re not sure which.
26 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example
All E are R
Some B are not E
E
Some B are not R

So, having drawn exactly

what is in the two premises
and no more, is the conclusion
necessarily true? Is it true that X?
some B are not R? B R

No, this is an invalid argument.

The “X” shows that there may be
some B that are not R, but not necessarily.
27 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example
I M H

No islands are part of the mainland and Hawaii is an

island. Therefore, Hawaii is not on the mainland.
No I are M
Translated into All H are I
standard form No H are M I

Draw the first premise. Nothing that is

an I is inside the M circle. So, all the
things inside I, if there are any, are in
the other parts of the circle. H M
28 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example
I
No I are M
All H are I
No H are M
Now draw the second premise. Everything
that is in the H circle is also in the I circle.
H M
Thus, the rest of the H circle is empty and
should be shaded.
Step 3 asks you to look at what you’ve drawn and see if
the conclusion is necessarily true. Is it necessarily true
from the picture that nothing in the H circle is in the M
circle?
Yes, this is a valid argument!
29 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagram - Example
M C

Some modems are cable connections and some cable

connections are digital. Thus, some modems are digital.
D
Some M are C
Translated into Some C are D
standard form C
Some M are D
Draw the first premise. At least one thing
in M is also in C. Where should the “X” X
go? Do you see why the “X” has to go on the
line? From the premise you can’t tell which
side of the line is correct. M D
30 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 C
Venn Diagram - Example
Some M are C XX
Some C are D
Some M are D
Now the second premise. Where should M D
the “X” go to represent ‘at least one’ C
that is inside the D circle? Remember you want to draw
just what the premise says, no more and no less.
Again, the “X” must go on the line. Our drawing can
never be more precise than the premise is. Is it Valid?
No this is an invalid argument. There is no guarantee,
from the premises that the conclusion is true. There
may or may not be an M in the D circle.
31 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Venn Diagrams

If you apply the step by step approach to using Venn

Diagrams you will quickly become an expert. Keep
these things in mind:

1. Put your syllogism in standard form first.

2. Be consistent in how you draw your diagram.
3. Draw each premise exactly.
4. Test validity by looking for the necessity of the
conclusion.

32 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 A Little Propositional logic

33 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Propositional logic

 Propositional logic: a way to symbolize the

parts of arguments so that we can analyze
whole argument for validity.

Argument: Valid or Invalid????

34 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Conjunction

 Arguments are composed of statements

 A statement is a sentence regarded as either true or false.
 A single statement: A is tall
 p q
 A compound statement: A is tall and B is tall

Assume that we do not know whether our premises are true or

false.
Each of the variables has two possible truth value (true or false).
A truth table is a list of all possible truth values.

35 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Truth tables often seem complex and difficult. This
initial perception, however, is misleading. By
following a consistent, step-by-step process,
constructing truth tables will soon become second
nature. The practice it does take to gain this skill is
worth the effort for at least two reasons.

1. Truth tables are powerful and let you test the

validity of arguments with certainty.
2. The skills involved in constructing truth tables are
foundational for more sophisticated sorts of
symbolic logic.
36 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Before we begin it is important to take a minute to think
about what truth tables are and what their purpose is. Like
Venn Diagrams, truth tables are a way of representing an
argument symbolically for the purpose of determining the
argument’s validity or invalidity.
Validity, we recall, refers to a deductive argument
whose true premises guarantee the truth of its conclusion. On
the contrary, an invalid argument is one where the truth of the
premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.
Truth tables, then, offer a systematic way to investigate
these relationships and determine validity or invalidity.

37 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 First things first. As with Venn Diagrams, truth tables
require an argument to be translated into a form using claim
variables for the claims.
Each claim variable stands for a complete sentence.
Each claim variable has a truth value; that is, it is either
true or false.

P
This is a truth table. As you can see it shows the
T possible truth values of the claim “P.”
F
38 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Next, realize that whatever truth value a claim has, its
negation (contradictory claim) has the opposite truth
value.
We use the “~” to represent the negation
and pronounce this truth function symbol as
P ~P “not.”
T F
This truth table is the definition of
F T negation. So, if “P” is true then “not P”
is false and if “P” is false then “not P” is
true.

39 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Let’s look at the remaining truth function symbols.
They each represent the relationship between two
claims.

A conjunction is a compound claim asserting both of the

simpler claims contained in it. A conjunction is true if and
only if both of the simpler claims are true.

P&Q This is a conjunction using the ”&”

symbol. It is pronounced “P and Q.”

40 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 So, what would a truth table for a conjunction look like?
Remember it must show all the possible combinations of
truth values of its claims.
This table must contain 4 lines because it needs to show all
possible combinations of truth values of “P” and “Q.”

P Q P&Q
“P” True and “Q” True T T ?
“P” True and “Q” False T F ?
“P” False and “Q” True F T ?
“P” False and “Q” False F F ?

41 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Now, look at the third column. The lines below “P and
Q” show the truth values of this conjunction based on
the truth values of its parts. Since a conjunction is only
true when both its parts are true we can see how the
lines are assigned values.

Study this table carefully. Make

P Q P&Q
sure you understand what the
T T T purpose of each part is and what it
T F F tells you. It is essential that you
F T F understand these basics in order to
F F F use truth tables to test validity.

42 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 A disjunction is a compound claim asserting either or
both of the simpler claims contained in it. A
disjunction is false if and only if both of the simpler
claims are false.
PvQ This is a disjunction using the ”v”
symbol. It is pronounced “P or Q.”

P Q Pv Q This truth table represents the

T T T rule of disjunction. As you can
T F T see, the only way “P or Q” is false
F T T is the case where both “P” is false
F F F and “Q” is false.
43 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 A conditional is a compound claim asserting the second
simpler claim on the condition that the first is true. A
conditional is false if and only if the first claim is true and
the second false.
P → Q This is a conditional using the ”→” symbol. It
is pronounced “if P then Q.”

P Q P→ Q This truth table represents the

T T T conditional. As you can see, the only
T F F way “ if P then Q” is false is the
F T T case where “P” is true and “Q” is
F F T false.

44 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 We are now ready to look at truth table themselves. When
constructing truth tables, keep the following three rules in
mind:
1. Use parentheses, as in algebra, to represent where the
truth function operation is doing its work.

2. The table must capture all possible combinations of

truth values for individual sentences contained in the
complex expression.
3. The table must contain columns for the parts of the final
complex expression, if any of those parts is not a single
claim variable.
45 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Determine the validity or invalidity of this argument:

“If building the bookshelf requires a screw driver then I

will not be able to build it. After reading the directions I
see that a screw driver is needed. So, I can’t build it.”

If S then not B
First, translate this argument
S _
into standard form
Not B

S → ~B
Now into symbols
S _
~B
46 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 S → ~B Now, build a truth table. We have two claim
S _ variables, “S” and “~B” which will each need a
~B column.

Next, we need a column for each premise and the

conclusion. The second premise is already represented, so
we only need to add the first premise to our table.

S ~B S → ~B ~B
T T
T F
F T
F F
47 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 S → ~B Now, fill in the truth values for the first
S _ premise based on the rule of the conditional.
~B
For convenience we can add columns for the second premise
and the conclusion, though they are already in the table.

S ~B S → ~B
T We’re done. Our truth table
T T
F now tells us whether or not the
T F
T argument is valid. What do
F T
T you think?
F F
48 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 S → ~B
S _
~B

S ~B S → ~B S ~B
T T T T T
T F F T F
F T T F T
F F T F F

As you can see there are no such lines, so this is a valid argument.
When the premises are true so is the conclusion.

49 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 Determine the validity or invalidity of this argument

“Martin is not buying a new car since he said he would

buy a new car or take a Hawaiian vacation and I just
heard him talking about his trip to Maui.

C or H
First, translate this argument
H _
into standard form
Not C
CvH
Now into symbols
H _
~C
50 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 CvH Now, build a truth table. We have two claim
H _ variables, “C” and “H” which will each need a
~C column.

Next, we need a column for each premise and the

conclusion. The second premise is already represented, so
we only need to add the first premise to our table.

C H CvH ~C
T T
T F
F T
F F

51 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 CvH Now, fill in the truth values for the first
H _ premise based on the rule of disjunction.
~C For convenience we can add columns for the
second premise, though it is already in the table. We merely
recopy the “H” column and determine the truth values of the
conclusion “~ C” column by negating the “C.”

C H CvH H ~C
T T T F We’re done. Our truth table
T
T F T F now tells us whether or not the
F
F T T T argument is valid.
T
F F F F T
52 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 CvH C H CvH H ~C
T T T T F
H _
T F T F F
~C
F T T T T
F F F F T

When you inspect the truth table you want to see if it is

possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
false.
Note the red shaded line. It is possible for the premises
to be true and the conclusion false. This is an invalid
argument.
53 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Now, use a truth table to determine the validity or invalidity
of this argument:
“If you want to over-clock your processor you must make both
hardware and software changes. Unfortunately, you are either
ignorant of hardware or software. So, you won’t be over-clocking
your processor
If O then H and S
First, translate this argument
Not H or Not S _
into standard form
Not O
O → (H & S)
Now into symbols
~H v ~S _
~O
54 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 O → (H & S) Now, build a truth table. We have three
~H v ~S _ claim variables: “O,” “H,” and “S,” which
~O will each need a column. With
three variables we will need 8 lines to show all possible truth
value combinations. Note the the “S” column
alternates one true and one false all the way
O H S
down, the “H” line alternates pairs of trues
T T T
and falses and the “O” line alternates four
T T F
trues with four falses. If we had another
T F T
column it would alternate eight trues with
T F F
eight falses.
F T T
F T F Now add columns for the premises.
F F T
F F F
55 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 O → (H & S) We need columns for “~H” and
~H v ~S _ “~S”.We get these truth values
~O by negating “H” and “S”.

O H S ~H ~S H&S Next we add a column for

T T T F F T “H & S” by applying the
T T F F T F rule of conjunction to the
T F T T F F “H” and “S” truth values
T F F T T F we have already drawn.
F T T F F T
F T F F T F
F F T T F F
F F F T T F
56 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 O → (H & S)
~H v ~S _
~O

O H S ~H ~S H&S O → (H&S)
T T T F F T T
T T F F T F F
T F T T F F F
T F F T T F F
Go To
F T T F F T T
Next Slide
F T F F T F T
F F T T F F T
F F F T T F T

57 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong

 O → (H & S) Now add a column for the second
~H v ~S _ premise by applying the rule of
~O disjunction to the “~H” and “~S” values
in the table.
O H S ~H ~S H&S O → (H&S) ~H v ~S
T T T F F T T F
T T F F T F F T
T F T T F F F T
T F F T T F F T
F T T F F T T F
F T F F T F T T
F F T T F F T T
F F F T T F T T
58 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 O → (H & S) Now add a column for the conclusion
~H v ~S _ by negating the “O” column and
~O determine the validity or invalidity.

O H S ~H ~S H & S O → (H&S) ~H v ~S ~O
T T T F F T T F F
T T F F T F F T F
T F T T F F F T F
T F F T T F F T F
F T T F F T T F T
F T F F T F T T T
F F T T F F T T T
F F F T T F T T T
59 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 O → (H & S) There are no cases where the premises
~H v ~S _ are true and the conclusion is false.
~O Thus, this is a valid argument.

O H S ~H ~S H & S O → (H&S) ~H v ~S ~O
T T T F F T T F F
T T F F T F F T F
T F T T F F F T F
T F F T T F F T F
F T T F F T T F T
F T F F T F T T T
F F T T F F T T T
F F F T T F T T T
60 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong
 Thank you

61 Assoc. Prof. Ho Thanh Phong