Symbolic Logic for Everyday Argumentation

An Introduction to Pospesel & Marans, Deductive Logic Exercises.

The instructional video which accompanies this lesson may be found at this link:
https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/mastering-symbolic-logic-an-
introduction/48197233/?s=jbBAzM&ref=appemail

Hello everyone! Thank you for taking the time to read this blog. This blog will explain how to
answer every exercise from BOTH editions of Howard Pospesel’s and David Marans’ wonderful
book, Deductive Logic Exercises. Why have I singled this book, in both of its editions, out for
special attention? I believe that working through both editions carefully is one of the best ways
currently available to master formal logic and improve one’s critical thinking. If you want to
master the tool of symbolic logic and if you want to be able to read, understand and dissect
complex argumentation from any field of discourse, there is scarcely a better method I can
think of than going through the delightful curriculum both of these authors have prepared for
you and have made publicly available.

Perhaps you have taken a symbolic logic class before but are unsure of how to apply your hard-
won skills to the practical task of analyzing the myriad streams of thought that compete against
one another in attempting to persuade you of their values and claims. You have come to the
right place! You will see, even after just a few sections of these exercises, your perception of
your own reasoning and the reasoning of others will dramatically shift. You will become
competent in dissecting arguments from everyday discourse and distilling their essential
structure for the purposes of appraisal and evaluation.

If you haven’t taken a symbolic logic class yet, great! I reassure you that you will be able to
learn the techniques of formal logic by reading these blog posts and watching the videos I will
post. Although this series will be best appreciated if one already has at least some knowledge
of modern symbolic logic, I will not deny that it is indeed possible to become acquainted with
the techniques I describe just by reading these posts and watching the forthcoming videos.
However, in my opinion, it is probably best if one goes through a basic logic text or course
before approaching these intermediate to advanced exercises. These exercises are meant to
take one from a knowledge of formal logic to a mastery of it, and are not meant as
introductions to the discipline.

With that little bit of exposition out of the way, I believe that an explanation of the structure of
the exercises is in order. Here is a concocted example of what the exercises will look like:

Example 1: All MEN are MORTAL. SOCRATES is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

When Pospesel & Marans present us with an argument like the one pictured above, this is what
we are supposed to do: the terms in capital letters are meant to be hints as to how we are
supposed to symbolize the argument. Let ‘A’ represent the predicate ‘man,’ let ‘O’ represent
the predicate ‘mortal’ and finally let ‘s’ denote the individual Socrates. Taking our example and
using our legend, our first step in analyzing the above argument will go as follows: in the place
of each capitalized predicate and proper name, we will replace with the appropriate
abbreviation according to our legend. Doing this, we get:
Example 1 (after Step 1): All A are O. s is A. Therefore, s is O.

Already, the structure of the argument is a bit clearer, isn’t it? However, we are not yet done.
To finish the translation stage, we must take the above partially symbolized statements and
convert them into well-formed statements of first order predicate logic (FOPL).

Example 1 (after Steps 1 and 2): ∀x(Ax => Ox). As. Os.

Now we can test the argument for logical validity (an argument will be valid just in case it is
impossible for its premises to be all true and yet for the conclusion to be false). The conclusion
is ‘Socrates is mortal’ or ‘Os’, and the premises are ‘∀x(Ax => Ox)’ and ‘As’ (remember that
keyword ‘Therefore’ that was placed before the statement ‘Socrates is mortal’? That tells us
that that final statement is the conclusion of the argument, and that the two statements
preceding it are the premises). Does the conclusion follow?

First, let’s appraise it intuitively. The argument is pretty evidently valid, and is a famous
instance of what is called the ‘Barbara’ syllogism. If all men are mortal, then if Socrates is a man
then, being a man, he must be mortal! If Socrates weren’t mortal, then we’d have at least one
man who wasn’t mortal, thus contradicting the first premise which says that all men are mortal.
Hopefully that makes sense .

However, we can go a level deeper than this informal explanation (indeed, it seems that every
logic instructor and textbook author wants us, even impels us to do so!). Using first order
predicate logic, let’s give a formal proof that the conclusion of the above argument follows
from its premise set. Gather together the two premises, and label them 1 and 2:

1. ∀x(Ax => Ox) All men are mortal

2. As Socrates is a man

We can write a new line which says ‘As => Os’ or in plain English ‘If Socrates is a man, then
Socrates is mortal.’ This follows from statement 1, by the rule of inference Universal
Instantiation (some more formally inclined textbooks, like Language Proof and Logic, call this
rule V-Elimination).

1. ∀x(Ax => Ox) All men are mortal

2. As Socrates is a man
3. As => Os … 1 UI If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal
We’re almost done! By applying modus ponens (=>-Elimination) to lines 2 and 3, we may validly
infer “Socrates is mortal” or “Os.”

1. ∀x(Ax => Ox) All men are mortal

2. As Socrates is a man
3. As => Os … 1 UI If Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal
4. Os … 2,3 MP Socrates is mortal
QED

We have derived our conclusion. Hence, the argument is valid.

In an upcoming post, we will begin with the translation exercises from the beginning of the
section on syllogistic logic in the second edition of Arguments: Deductive Logic Exercises.