1. Subject term- being talk about the predicate.

Quantifier- words w/c determines the quantity.

2. Copula- are expressed in the verb ‘to be’

- determines the quality.

3. Predicate term- the one that describe the subject.

Ex.

Athletes are people with energy

I. Categorical Proposition
 a proposition whose Predicate is Directly
attributed to the Subject.
 Answerable by true or false and yes or no
directly.
 Predicate is always pointing out the
subject directly.
 proposition by which the affirmation or
denial b/w two concepts is expressed in
an Absolute, Immediate, Direct or
Unconditional manner
Ex. Mangyans are the minorities from
Mindoro.
Define
1. Judgment
2. Proposition
3. Categorical Proposition
4. Hypothetical Proposition
5. Affirmative Proposition
1. Flowers are beautiful
2. Regine Velasques sings
3. Many scientists invent new devices
4. Magellan explores
5. Not everyone can dance
6. Some people used water for cleansing
wounds
7. Several people suffered from extreme
poverty
8. God exists
9. No one kissed him on the cheeks
10. Almost all people believed in God
The Venn Diagram was
introduced by the famous
mathematician and
logician of the 19th century
John Venn (1834-1923).
John Venn wanted to have
method by which we would
be able to test the validity
of a syllogism through the
use of diagram that will
show the relations of
inclusion and exclusion
between classes.
 To analyze a categorical proposition, the
circle S, which represents the subject of
a proposition, needs to be connected to
another circle P, which represents the
predicate of the same proposition.
 This can be shown by the way two
intersecting circles.
INFERENCE
seeks to conform to the standard set by
the propositions and by doing so, it sets
to establish a frame of reference for the
emergence of new ideas.

Therefore, the process whereby the mind

draws new idea from one proposition to
another is a fitting description of the term
‘inference’.
KIND INFERENCE
IMMEDIATE INFERENCE- from the word
‘immediate’ which is synonymous with the
word ‘direct’ or ‘without any a do’, this type
of inference draws its conclusion from one
proposition only without the aid of the
second proposition.

What is particular with this kind of inference is

that it consists only of two terms:
the SUBJECT and the PREDICATE.
Due to the material make-up of this
inference, it offers little of knowledge
and cannot elicit an advance type of
knowledge.

This is what makes other logicians consider

it as a non-inference in the strictest
sense.
KIND INFERENCE
MEDIATE INFERENCE- The word ‘mediate’
entails the use of two propositions. Hence,
this type of inference draws a conclusion
from two given propositions.

Since this inference proceeds from two known

propositions, it offers the mind a new form of
truth, of course, is a product of the
comparison of the two propositions that
contained individual truths.
There are two known types of mediate
inference;
INDUCTIVE DEDUCTIVE
ANTECEDENT – is regarded as the structure of
logical inference to which something is to
be taken or inferred.

The term itself was taken from a latin word

antecedo which means something that
goes before.

Indeed, antecedent is taken to be essentially

important for consequent is nothing without
it.
CONSEQUENT – on the other hand, is
regarded as the structure of logical
inference from which something is taken or
inferred in the antecedent.

It was a term originated from a latin word

consequor which is regarded to mean
something that follows after.
In a valid inference, it is essential for the
consequent to become true if the
antecedent is true.

Ex 1. All Japanese are Asians.

Some Japanese are businessmen
Ergo, some businessmen are Asians
Ex 2. Every Catholic is a stern believer of
Mary.
Ergo, some believers of Mary are
Catholics.
Ex 3. Every dog is biped.
Ergo, some biped are dogs.
Ex 4. All mayors are local officials
No mayors are councilors
Ergo, no councilors are local officials.
Ex 5. Man is a creature
Ergo, man needs God
It is said that a sequence can be formally or
materially valid.
- If the sequence is related to the form or
truthfulness of the inference then the
sequence is regarded as formally valid.
The entire argument is also regarded as
formally valid or formally correct.
- If the sequence is related to the special
character of the thought-content of the
inference then the sequence is regarded as
materially valid.
Example

Every philosopher is a deep thinker.

Some students are deep thinkers.
Ergo, some students are philosophers
Example

Every manager is an administrator

Ergo, every administrator is a manager.
The formal validity of the inference is
measured through the natural sequence
of the antecedent and the conclusion.
That is if the antecedent is true then the
conclusion is also true.

Logic does not concern itself whether or

not the conclusion is true but whether or
not it flows from the truthfulness of the
antecedents.
Example

Every factory worker is a laborer,

Some factory workers are women.
Ergo, some women are laborers.
Example

Every cat is a feline.

No cat is a tiger.
Ergo, no tiger is a feline.
Example

Every Filipino is an Asian,

Some Filipinos are not business-minded
individuals.
Ergo, some business-minded individuals
are not Asians.
First, what is a principle?
The word PRINCIPLE always connotes
something that already existed and from
it something else will either come to exist
or will be known.
There are three major pairs of principles
that are being acknowledged by
logicians.
These are:
1. Principle of Identity and Contradiction
2. Principle of identifying the third and
the principle of separating the third.
3. The principle of dictum de omni and
the principle of dictum de nullo.
Is a principle which claims that if any
argument is true then it is really true.
The principle is best describe through the
statement “Whatever is, is” or through the
statement “Everything is what is”.

Ex. 1. Every horse is an animal.

Ergo, some animals are horses .
2. Every flower is fragrant.
A rose is a flower.
Ergo, a rose is fragrant.
Is sometimes called the PRINCIPLE OF NON-
CONTRADICTION.
This principle states that a thing cannot be
and not be at the same time or in the same
respect.

Ex. 1. You are a man.

Ergo, you are a woman.
2. You cannot be at two places at the
same time
It is a principle whose basic premise is “Two
things that are identical with the same third
thing are identical with each other”

Ex. 1. Every plant is a living thing.

Every orchid is a plant.
Ergo, every orchid is a living thing.
2. Every vehicle is a form of
transportation
Every car is a vehicle
Ergo, every car is a form of transportation
Is a principle whose basic premises is “Two
things which the one is identical with the
same third thing and the other is not are
not identical with one another.

Contrary to the principle of identifying the

third, this principle exhibits a form of
denial in one of the concepts presented
Let us analyze the two given examples below:

1. Every sophomore is a student.

No student is a teacher.
Ergo, no teacher is a sophomore.

2. No rapist is morally good,

Every rapist is a criminal.
Ergo, no criminal is morally good.
The DICTUM DE OMNI AND THE DICTUM DE
NULLO
Is a principle which is applicable to any
affirmative syllogism .
It basic premise is formulated as “What is
predicated of a logical whole maybe
predicated distributively of each of its
inferior.”
For examples below:

1. Every doctor is a medical expert.

Every pediatrician is a doctor.
Ergo, every pediatrician is a medical
expert.
The DICTUM DE NULLO (LAW OF NONE) – is
a principle of which the basic premise is
“What is denied of a logical whole may
also be denied distributively of each
inferiors.

This principle is manifested in a negative

syllogism.
For examples below:

1. No genius is dumb.
Every philosopher is a genius
Ergo, no philosopher is dumb