PHLO 1 U 14-15

Lecture module for April 2 (Maundy Thursday)

Instructions: Read the lecture notes below and practice your skills by answering the
activities. Check your answers with the answer key to see if you understood the lesson
correctly. Answer the assignment at the end, which will be discussed in your recitation
meeting on April 7, 2015.
Lecture Notes
In this module we begin our brief introduction to logic. In the following modules and
lectures we shall cover both formal and informal logic.
For our purposes, let us define logic as the study of arguments and reasoning. This is
important in philosophy because we are constantly using and evaluating arguments in
the form of philosophical claims.
For example, Parmenides philosophical claim that change and motion do not happen is
backed up by an argument. Without an argument, Parmenides ideas would have been
simply baseless assertions. The same holds true for most, if not all, of the philosophical
ideas that we have discussed so far.
When we look at arguments, we can see two distinct and simple parts. These are: (1)
Conclusion and (2) Premises. The conclusion is the main claim of the argument. The
premises are the supporting ideas that help show the truth of the conclusion.
A good argument, at the formal level, is one in which the premises support the
conclusion. The conclusion, conversely, should also follow from the premises. You
might think that this is all common sense, but you would be surprised at the real amount
of bad arguments that we are exposed to.
Take a look at these two examples:
(A) If it rains, the ground is wet. It rained. Therefore the ground is wet.
(B) If it rains, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it rained.
Both are arguments, but only (A) is acceptable. In (B), the premises do not support the
conclusion, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If you think about it,
the ground could be wet even if it did not rain.
Notice how the two arguments use the same propositions, but those same propositions
are arranged differently. (B) switches the second premise and the conclusion from (A).
When we evaluate the argument this way, we are evaluating the arguments FORM. An
arguments form depends on the number of terms and propositions it has, as well as the
arrangement of the said parts.

You can look at the form of an argument without even thinking about its empirical
content. For instance:
(C) If Noli Me Tangere was written by Jose Rizal then Rizal was Hitlers son. If Rizal
was Hitlers son, then an alien from another galaxy shot President John F. Kennedy.
Noli Me Tangere was written by Jose Rizal. Therefore, an alien from another galaxy
shot President John F. Kennedy.
Argument (C) contains some obviously false or outlandish propositions, but it uses an
argument that is acceptable or considered good reasoning. This is what we mean when
we say we look at the arguments form without first thinking about its content. We call
this FORMAL ANALYSIS.
Formal Analysis is the main component of FORMAL LOGIC. In our introduction to
formal logic, we shall learn about one of the methods of formal analysis, which is the
Truth Table Method. Before we learn about this method, however, we should first know
how to translate arguments into their formal structures. This is done through what is
called SYMBOLIC LOGIC.
Translation of arguments into their symbolic form is composed of three simple steps.
The first is identifying the terms present in the argument. The next is identifying the
relations found amongst the terms in the argument. The last step is substituting the
terms and their relations with symbols that are agreed upon by convention.
The convention that we shall use is comprised of the following:
-For terms, use the letters P, Q, R, and S in order of appearance. In other words, you
will replace the first term to appear with P, the next term with Q, and so on.
-For relations, refer to the table below.
RELATION MEANING
Negation
NOT
Conjunction AND
Alternation
Implication

EITHER/OR
IF-THEN

SYMBOL

Thus, if we go back to arguments (A), (B) and (C), they will be translated as such:
(A):

PQ
P
Therefore Q.

(B):

PQ
Q
Therefore P

(C):

PQ
QR
P
Therefore R.

Other examples:
(D):

Either we go to the mall or we go to the library. We dont go to the mall.

Therefore we go to the library.

(E):

Today the weather is windy and sunny. Either it is sunny or it is not sunny.
Therefore if it is windy then it is sunny.

They are translated into:

(D):

PvQ
~P
Therefore Q

(E):

PQ
Q v ~Q
Therefore PQ

Test yourself with the following examples:

(1):

If the storm goes over warm waters then it will intensify into a typhoon. The storm
goes over warm waters and intensifies into a typhoon. Therefore there will be no
classes tomorrow.

(2):

Either you let me sing the lead vocal or you let me play lead guitar. If I play lead
guitar then the band will play a song I wrote. I will not sing the lead vocal.
Therefore the band will play a song I wrote.

Check your answers at the end of this document.

Assignment:
I. Translate the following arguments into their symbolic forms.
(1):

If I run a full marathon this month then I will ride 100k on my bike. Either I run a
full marathon or I will concentrate on my day job. I will ride 100k on my bike.
Therefore I will not concentrate on my day job.

(2):

The food is either cheap or tasty. If it is tasty then I will eat a lot. Therefore, the
food is not cheap and I will eat a lot.

II. Reverse translation. Use the legend below to translate the symbolized argument.
Legend:

P= I buy I red bag

Q= I buy a blue bag
R= I work overtime

Argument:

PR
QR
Therefore, P v Q

Answer Key for the exercise:

(1):

PQ
PQ
Therefore R

(2):

PvQ
QR
~P
Therefore R