Immediate Inference Cheat Sheet

Equivalent Immediate Inferences of the four Categorical Statements:

All S is P
=  No S is non-P  (obverse)
=  All non-P is non-S  (contrapositive)

No S is P
=  All S is non-P  (obverse)
=  No P is S  (converse)

Some S is P
= Some S is not non-P  (obverse)
= Some P is S  (converse)

Some S is not P
= Some S is non-P  (obverse)
= Some non-P is not non-S  (contrapositive)

Immediate inferences work in reverse:

All S is non-P
= No S is P  (obverse)

All non-S is non-P
= All P is S  (contrapositive)

No S is non-P
= All S is P  (obverse)

Some S is non-P
= Some S is not P  (obverse)

Some S is not non-P
= Some S is P  (obverse)

Some non-S is not non-P
= Some P is not S  (contrapositive)

Immediate inferences can be combined:

No non-S is P
= No P is non-S = All P is S  (converse, obverse)

Some non-S is P
= Some P is non-S = Some P is not S  (converse, obverse)

Other translations:

All non-S is P
= All non-P is S  (contrapositive)

No non-S is non-P
= All non-S is P  (obverse)

Some non-S is not P
= Some non-P is not S  (contrapositive)

Some non-S is non-P
= Some non-S is not P  (obverse)

All of this and more is included in this complete Immediate Inference Chart.

A Simpler Truth Tree

In this video, I decompose a set of propositions from Intermediate Logic, Additional Exercises for Lesson 24. I first decompose the truth tree in the order of the given propositions. I contrast this with a second truth tree that uses the simplifying techniques from Lesson 24.

This shows first, how to use a truth tree to determine consistency, and second, how the techniques from Lesson 24 make the truth tree simpler.

A Brief History of Validity #2

In the last post in this series, we saw that Aristotle identified 16 valid forms of categorical syllogisms (though he formally acknowledged only the first three figures). Some thirteenth-century logicians such as William of Sherwood and Peter of Spain recognized nineteen valid forms, giving them Latin names as a mnemonic device for ease of memorizing: Continue reading A Brief History of Validity #2

A Brief History of Validity #1

Which forms of categorical syllogisms are valid? Logicians have disputed the answer for centuries, a dispute that can give us insight into the meaning of validity, the central concept of formal logic. This will be the first of a few posts in which I will briefly discuss the history of syllogistic validity.

It all started with Aristotle, who in his Prior Analytics, Book I, chapters 4-7, detailed sixteen valid forms: Continue reading A Brief History of Validity #1

Rhetoric Interview

The following is a slightly edited version of a survey given me by Joshua Butcher – rhetoric instructor at Trinitas Christian School in Pensacola, Florida – regarding the teaching of rhetoric in a classical, Christian setting.

Josh:  How long have you taught rhetoric in a classical education setting?
Jim:  I taught Classical Rhetoric for 18 years at Logos School to 11th graders. I have also written a rhetoric text – Fitting Words: Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student – and lectured through it.

Josh:  What are the essentials of rhetoric that every classically educated student should have?
Jim:  Do you mean, “What are the essential rhetorical skills that every classically educated student should seek to master?” Continue reading Rhetoric Interview

After Intermediate Logic?

What is recommended after Intermediate Logic? The short answer is: Rhetoric! But let me give you a bit more than that.

Introductory and Intermediate Logic together provide a complete foundational logic curriculum. Informal, categorical, and modern propositional logic are all included. The next step in a student’s classical education is to begin to apply what they have learned in logic to effective speaking and writing. This means that the student should move on to study formal rhetoric. Rhetoric applies the tools of logic: defining terms, declaring truth, arguing to valid conclusions, and refuting invalid ones. Indeed, of the modes of rhetorical persuasion – ethos, pathos, and logos – one-third is applied logic.

With this in mind, Roman Roads has released a new curriculum, Fitting Words: Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student. I am the author of this text, and in Fitting Words I work to apply in rhetoric much of what the student has learned in logic. I am very excited about this project, because one significant reason that I wrote this text was to provide a satisfying answer the question of where to go next!

Take a look HERE for the most up-to-date information about Fitting Words.

Equivalence w/ Shorter Truth Tables

Mr. Nance,

Within Intermediate Logic Lesson 11, what would keep us from setting up the propositions both being true at the same time, and if there were a contradiction they would not be equivalent? Instead of setting them up one true and one false and if there’s a contradiction then they are equivalent?

That would be checking for consistency, not equivalence. If you set them both as true, and get a contradiction, then they are not consistent (which of course also means they are not equivalent, nor related by implication, per the chart in Introductory Logic, p. 71). But if you get no contradiction, all you have shown is that they can both be true, which is the meaning of consistency. To show equivalence, you have to show that they cannot have opposite truth values: the first cannot be true while the second is false, and vice versa.


Formal Proof Challenge!

Several years ago I was teaching a logic course, and we were learning about formal proofs of validity. I enjoy proofs, and to keep myself sharp I was working through a practice quiz in David Kelley’s The Art of Reasoning, when I came across this argument:

D ⊃ (E ⊃ F)
D ⊃ (F ⊃ G)
∴ D ⊃ (E ⊃ G)

I was in a quiet library with plenty of time, but despite all my efforts I could not solve this (without using the Conditional Proof). The next day in class some students were finishing their assignment early, so I  challenged them with this proof, thinking to myself, “That ought to keep them busy,” but not really expecting anyone to succeed. Before the end of class, Caroline Jones came forward and said, “I solved it, Mr. Nance.” I scoffed inwardly at first, only to be pleasantly surprised by her correct solution.

Since that time I have called this “The Caroline Jones” proof, and have challenged my logic students to solve it using only the regular rules of inference and replacement. The most elegant proof I have seen requires twelve total steps.

Anyone up to the challenge?

Reductio Challenge

In formal proofs of validity, the reductio ad absurdum method can be used to make some proofs easier, and even some shorter. For example, consider this argument:

(~P ⊃ R) • (~Q ⊃ S)    ~(R S)    ∴ P • Q

The proof for this valid argument is 14 steps without the reductio (which I will let you try to solve on your own), but only 7 steps with the reductio, as shown here:

  1. (~P ⊃ R) • (~Q ⊃ S)
  2. ~(R ∨ S)   /  ∴  P • Q
  3. ~(P • Q)                     R.A.A.
  4. ~P ∨ ~Q                    3 De M.
  5. R ∨ S                         1, 4 C.D.
  6. (R ∨ S) • ~(R ∨ S)   5, 2 Conj.
  7. P • Q                          3-6 R.A.

The reasoning behind the reductio method is this: If assuming that a proposition is false leads to a self-contradiction, then the proposition must be true. This reasoning can itself be written as a propositional argument:

~P ⊃ (Q • ~Q)   ∴  P

This is a valid argument, as a shorter truth table will show. But the proof for this argument (if you are not allowed to use reductio) requires 13 steps, and it is rather difficult to solve. Any takers?