Logic and Critical Thinking

Ch-08: Symbolic logic

Propositional Logic, Logical Connectives, conditions,
Material Implication and Equivalence.
Modern Logic and Its Symbolic Language
Symbolic Language
• Because the appraisal of arguments is made difficult by the
peculiarities of natural language, logicians have formulated an
artificial, symbolic language system that is not encumbered by
linguistic defects.
Symbolic Logic
• In some respects, it helps logicians to accomplish intellectual
tasks without having to think as much.
• Thus, symbolic logic is not tied to syllogisms, but can go directly
to assessing the internal structure of propositions and
arguments.
The Symbols for Conjunction, Negation, and Disjunction
 T T

Truth Table T
F
F
T
F F
 T T T

Conjunction (dot) T
F
F
T
F
F
F F F
Negation (curl or tilde) T
F
F
T
 T T T

Disjunction (wedge) T
F
F
T
T
T
F F F
EXERCISES
Question # 1) Using the truth-table definitions of the dot, the wedge, and the
curl, determine which of the following statements are true: ( Note: Rome is
the capital of Italy, London is the capital of England, Paris is the capital of
France, Oslo is the capital of Norway, Stockholm is the capital of Sweden,
Madrid is the capital of Spain).

• 1)Rome is the capital of Italy V Rome is the capital of Spain.

• 2)~ (London is the capital of England · Stockholm is the capital of

Norway).

• 3)~ London is the capital of England · ~ Stockholm is the capital

of Norway.

• 10)Rome is the capital of Spain V ~ (Paris is the capital of France

· Rome is the capital of Spain).
• 11)Rome is the capital of Italy · ~ (Paris is the capital of France V Rome is
the capital of Spain).

• 12)~ ( ~ Paris is the capital of France · ~ Stockholm is the capital of

Norway).

• 16)Rome is the capital of Spain V ( ~ London is the capital of England V

London is the capital of England).

• 17)Paris is the capital of France · ~ (Paris is the capital of France · Rome

is the capital of Spain).

• 18)London is the capital of England · ~ (Rome is the capital of Italy ·

Rome is the capital of Italy).
Question # 2) If A, B, and C are true statements and X , Y,
and Z are false statements, which of the following are true?

𝐴∨ 𝐵
𝑌 ∨𝐶
𝐵∨ 𝑋
( 𝐴 • 𝑋)∨(𝐵• 𝑌 )
( 𝐴• 𝐵)∨( 𝑋 •𝑌 )
[(𝐵 •𝐶 )• (𝐶 • 𝐵)]
[ 𝐴∨(𝐵 ∨𝐶)]• [( 𝐴∨ 𝐵)∨𝐶]
Question # 3) Using the letters E, I, J, L, and S to abbreviate the simple
statements, “Egypt’s food shortage worsens,” “Iran raises the price of oil,”
“Jordan requests more U.S. aid,” “Libya raises the price of oil,” and “Saudi
Arabia buys five hundred more warplanes,” symbolize these statements.
• 1)Iran raises the price of oil but Libya does not raise the price of oil.
• 2)Either Iran or Libya raises the price of oil.
• 3)Iran and Libya both raise the price of oil.
• 4)Iran and Libya do not both raise the price of oil.
• 5)Iran and Libya both do not raise the price of oil.
• 6)Iran or Libya raises the price of oil but they do not both do so.
Conditional Statements and Material Implication
Conditional Statement
• Where two statements are combined by placing the word “if”
before the first and inserting the word “then” between them, the
resulting compound statement is a conditional statement (also
called a hypothetical, an implication, or an implicative
statement).
• In a conditional statement the component statement that
follows the “if” is called the antecedent (or the implicans or
rarely—the protasis), and the component statement that follows
the “then” is the consequent (or the implicate or—rarely—the
apodosis).
Example and differences
• Consider the following four conditional statements, each of which
seems to assert a different type of implication, and to each of
which corresponds a different sense of “if–then”:

• If all humans are mortal and Socrates is a human, then Socrates is

mortal.

• If Jameela is a bachelor, then Jameela is unmarried.

• If this piece of blue litmus paper is placed in acid, then this piece of blue
litmus paper will turn red.

• If State loses the homecoming game, then I’ll eat my hat.

 T T T

Material Implication T
F
F
T
F
T
F F T
EXERCISES
Question # 1) If A, B, and C are true statements and X, Y, and Z are false
statements, determine which of the following are true, using the truth tables
for the horseshoe, the dot, the wedge, and the curl.

𝐴⊃ 𝐵
𝐴⊃ 𝑋
𝐵 ⊃𝑌
( 𝐴 ⊃ 𝐵)⊃ 𝑍
[( 𝐴 ⊃ 𝐵)⊃𝐶 ]⊃ 𝑍
[( 𝐴 • 𝑋)⊃𝐶 ]⊃[( 𝐴⊃ 𝐶)⊃ 𝑋 ]
Question # 2)Symbolize the following, using capital letters to abbreviate the
simple statements involved.

• If Argentina mobilizes, then if Brazil protests to the UN, then

Chile will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.

• If Argentina mobilizes, then either Brazil will protest to the UN or

Chile will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.

• If Argentina mobilizes, then Brazil will protest to the UN and

Chile will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.
• If Argentina mobilizes, then Brazil will protest to the UN, and
Chile will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.

• If Argentina mobilizes and Brazil protests to the UN, then Chile

will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.

• If either Argentina mobilizes or Brazil protests to the UN, then

Chile will call for a meeting of all the Latin American states.
Argument Forms and Refutation by Logical Analogy
Argument Form
• If the premises of a valid argument are true, its conclusion must
be true.

• If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, at least one of the

premises must be false.

• In short, the premises of a valid argument give incontrovertible

proof of the conclusion drawn.
Refutation by Logical Analogy
• If Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, then Bacon was a
great writer.
• Bacon was a great writer.
• Therefore Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

• We may agree with the premises but disagree with the conclusion, judging
the argument to be invalid.
• One way of proving invalidity is by the method of logical analogy. “You
might as well argue,” we could retort, “that

• If Washington was assassinated, then Washington is dead.

• Washington is dead.
• Therefore Washington was assassinated.
Refutation by Logical Analogy (cont:)
• This method of refutation by logical analogy points the way to an excellent general
technique for testing arguments. To prove the invalidity of an argument, it suffices to
formulate another argument that
1. has exactly the same form as the first and
2. has true premises and a false conclusion.
• This method is based on the fact that validity and invalidity are purely formal
characteristics of arguments, which is to say that any two arguments that have exactly
the same form are either both valid or both invalid, regardless of any differences in the
subject matter with which they are concerned.
• Here we assume that the simple statements involved are neither logically true (e.g., “All
chairs are chairs”) nor logically false (e.g., “Some chairs are nonchairs”).
• We also assume that the only logical relations among the simple statements involved
are those asserted or entailed by the premises.
• The point of these restrictions is to limit our considerations, in this chapter and the next,
to truth-functional arguments alone, and to exclude other kinds of arguments whose
validity turns on more complex logical considerations that are not appropriately
introduced at this point.
• A given argument exhibits its form very clearly when the simple
statements that appear in it are abbreviated by capital letters.
• Thus we may abbreviate the statements,
“Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare,”
“Bacon was a great writer,”
“Washington was assassinated,” and
“Washington is dead,”
• by the letters B, G, A, and D, respectively, and using the familiar
three-dot symbol “▲” for “therefore,” we may symbolize the two
preceding arguments as

• So written, their common form is easily seen.

Variable or Statement Variable
• To discuss forms of arguments rather than particular arguments
having those forms, we need some method of symbolizing
argument forms themselves.
• To achieve such a method, we introduce the notion of a variable.

• A variable is a place-holder; a letter (by convention, any of the

lower case letters, beginning with p, q, etc.) for which a
statement may be substituted.
• we use small, or lowercase, letters from the middle part of the
alphabet, p, q, r, s, . . ., as statement variables
Argument form
• An array of symbols exhibiting logical
structure; it contains no statements but
it contains statement variables.
• These variables are arranged in such a
way that when statements are
consistently substituted for the
statement variables, the result is an • If Bacon wrote the plays
attributed to Shakespeare,
argument. then Bacon was a great writer.
• Bacon was a great writer.
• Therefore Bacon wrote the
plays attributed to
Shakespeare.
Substitution instance
• Any argument that results from the substitution of statements
for the statement variables of a given argument form.

• Any argument that results from the substitution of statements

for statement variables in an argument form is called a
substitution instance of that argument form.
• Any substitution instance of an argument form may be said to
have that form, and any argument that has a certain form is said
to be a substitution instance of that form.
Specific form
• Specific form When referring to a given argument, the argument
form from which the argument results when a different simple
statement is substituted consistently for each different
statement variable in that form.
• If an argument is produced by substituting consistently a
different simple statement for each different statement variable
in an argument form, that argument form is the specific form of
the given argument.
• For any given argument, there is a unique argument form that is
the specific form of that argument.
The Precise Meaning of “Invalid” and “Valid”
• We are now in a position to address with precision the central questions of deductive logic:
• What precisely is meant by saying that an argument form is invalid, or valid?
• An argument form is invalid if and only if it has at least one substitution instance with true
premises and a false conclusion.
• If the specific form of a given argument has any substitution instance whose premises are
true and whose conclusion is false, then the given argument is invalid.
• This fact—that any argument whose specific form is an invalid argument form is an invalid
argument—provides the basis for refutation by logical analogy.
• A given argument is proved invalid if a refuting analogy can be found for it.
• An argument form is valid if and only if it has no substitution instances with true premises
and a false conclusion.
• Because validity is a formal notion, an argument is valid if and only if the specific form of
that argument is a valid argument form.
EXERCISES
Testing Argument Validity Using Truth Tables
Some Common Argument Forms
• Common Valid Forms
• Some valid argument forms are exceedingly common and may be
intuitively understood.
• These may now be precisely identified.
• They should be recognized may be called by their widely accepted
names:
1. Disjunctive Syllogism,
2. Modus Ponens,
3. Modus Tollens, and
4. Hypothetical Syllogism.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Modus Ponens
Modus Tollens
Hypothetical Syllogism
. Statement Forms and Statements
• A statement form is any sequence of symbols containing
statement variables but no statements, such that when
statements are substituted for the statement variables—the
same statement being substituted for the same statement
variable throughout—the result is a statement.
• Thus
𝑝∨𝑞
is a statement form, because when statements are substituted
for the variables p and q, a statement results.
• The resulting statement is a disjunction, so this is called a
disjunctive statement form .
Tautologous, Contradictory,
and Contingent Statement Forms
Material Equivalence
Logical Equivalence
• Two statements are logically equivalent if the statement of their
material equivalence is a tautology .