CHAPTER FOUR

CATEGORICAL PROPOSITIONS
This chapter emphasizes the standard forms of
categorical statements and their immediate
inferences, difference between the modern and
traditional squares of opposition what otherwise are
called Boolean and Aristotelian Square of
Oppositions, evaluating immediate inferences:
Venn Diagrams and Square of Oppositions and
Logical Operations: Conversion, Obversion, and
Contraposition.
 Lesson 1:
What is categorical and proposition?

• The term category/ categorical, refers to set or division of

things, b/n or among (human beings, animals, plants,
workers, ladies etc…) in an absolute/explicit ways.
The term proposition refers to the information content or
meaning of a statement.
A proposition (statement) related to two classes, or categories, is
called a categorical proposition.
The classes in question are denoted respectively by the subject term
and the predicate term, and the proposition asserts that either all or
part of the class denoted by the subject term is included in or
excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term.
 Contd…
•To avoid inconvenience, we can use the terms statement and proposition
interchangeably for the purpose.
•To put it differently, a categorical proposition is a statement that relates two
sets, classes, groups or categories , presented in their subject or predicate
positions that could be connected either by inclusion (partial/whole) or
exclusion (partial/whole) relations.
•Categorical propositions are simple, easy or plain statements that relate two
classes of things based on the rule of exclusion or inclusion principles. Examples

Every human being is mortal
Nothing that is a human which is eternal
There exists a fish that is a shark.
There are plants which are not edible.
 Contd…
some examples of categorical propositions:
 Every human being is mortal
 Nothing that is a human which is eternal
 There exists a fish that is a shark.
 There are plants which are not edible.
All the above statements are categorical propositions. This
is due to the fact that in each statement two sets of
things/divisions are related either in the form of
inclusion or exclusion. In the first example, two set of
things are given: human being (which is the subject of the
statement) and mortal (the predicate of the statement)
 Contd…
• In all the above cases, there are certain difficulties. If
the amount of the set of things is not clearly stated
based on fixed quantifiers, it is difficult to determine
the type of relation of the two classes in the form of
inclusion or exclusion. It is ambiguous to decide the
attribute (nature) of statements either negatively or
positively to determine their logical relation with
other statements. Any categorical proposition
asserts/affirm as either all or part of the class
denoted by the subject term is included in or excluded
from the class denoted by the predicate term.
 Contd…
Four types of categorical propositions:
•  Those that assert that the whole subject class is
included in the predicate class
•  Those that assert that part of the subject class is
included in the predicate class
•  Those that assert that the whole subject class is
excluded from the predicate class
•  Those that assert that part of the subject class is
excluded from the predicate class
 Contd…
1.1 Standard-Forms of Categorical Proposition
To determine the validity and invalidity of the immediate
inferences of categorical statements in invalid arguments
is based on the criteria of logical rules that should be
stated in standard form. A categorical proposition that
expresses these relations with complete clarity is called a
standard-form categorical proposition.
Attempt the following Questions.
 What is Category?
 What is Proposition?
 Identify role of inclusion and exclusion.
 Contd…
The standard form of categorical propositions is designed in
accordance with the rules of the partial or whole inclusion and
exclusion of the two classes stated in the subject and predicate
of the proposition.
The whole subject class is included in the predicate class.
( the principle of total inclusion).
Example:
• All men are mortal.
• All birds are feathery.
• All mammals are animals.
 Contd…
• The whole subject class is excluded from the predicate class. (the
principle of total exclusion).
Example:
• No men are eternal.
• No Muslims are Christians.
• No blacks are white.
Partially the subject class is included in the predicate class.(the
principle of partial inclusion).
Example:
• Some birds are mammals.
• Some politicians are liars.
• Some students are lazy.
 Contd...
Partially the subject class is excluded from the
predicate class.(the principle of partial exclusion).
Example:
• Some snakes are not poisonous.
• Some plants are not edible.
• Some Ethiopians are not friendly.
 1.2 The Components of Categorical
Propositions
A proposition/ statement is a sentence that can be either
true or false. Due to this, categorical proposition is
defined as a proposition that relates two classes,
respectively denoted by the subject term and the predicate
term. The proposition asserts as either all or part of the
class denoted by the subject term is included in or
excluded from the class denoted by the predicate term.
Accordingly, four propositions, of each has own
quantifier, subject term, sentential connective and
predicate term. These listed are, in general, known as
the components of a categorical proposition.
 Contd…
Look at the following Settings
Quantifier= ‘All’, ‘No’ and ‘Some’ indicate the quantity or amount of the
subject class.
Subject term = any term (word) or phrase that consists of set of things.
Copula = ‘Are’ and are ‘not’. The Latin copula is a sentential connective
that relates the subject and predicate terms.
Predicate term = A term consisting set of things, which has some kind of
relation with the subject term.
Note that the four components of standard form can, otherwise, be
summarized as a correct order of the standard form of a categorical
proposition as follows :
=Quantifier + subject term + copula + predicate term.
 Contd…
Summary of the four components of standard form:
(1) Those that assert that the whole subject class is
included in the predicate class;
(2) Those that assert that part of the subject class is
included in the predicate class;
(3) Those that assert that the whole subject class is
excluded from the predicate class;
(4) Those that assert that part of the subject class is
excluded from the predicate class.
 Contd…
Consider the following example:
• All members of the Ethiopian Medical Association are people holding degrees from
recognized academic institutions.
This standard-form categorical proposition is analyzed as follows: Quantifier:
all
Subject term: members of the Ethiopian Medical Association
Copula: are
Predicate term: people holding degrees from recognized academic institutions
• A categorical proposition is in standard form if and only if it is a substitution
instance of one of the following four forms:
 All S are P.
 No S are P.
 Some S are P.
 Some S are not P
 Contd…
• The subject an predicate terms and its four components, categorical
propositions could be stated in standard form symbolically -as follows.
• All S are P = All members of S is in P class.
• No S are P = No members of S is in P class.
• Some S are P = At least one member of S is in P class.
• Some S are not P = At least one member of S is not in P class.
Note: In logic, the quantifier―some always mean at least one‖.
Example: Some businesses are not profitable.
Quantifier: Some
Subject term: businesses
Copula: are not
Predicate term: Profitable
Standard form: Some S are not P
 Lesson 2: Attributes of Categorical Propositions
Quality and quantity are attributes of categorical propositions,
refers to meaning of categorical propositions in class terminology
Proposition Meaning in class notation
All S are P. Every member of the S class is a
member of the P class; that is, the S class is included in the P class.
No S are P. No member of the S class is a member of the P class;
that is, the S class is excluded from the P class.
Some S are P. At least one member of the S class is a member of
the P class.
Some S are not P. At least one member of the S class is not a
member of the P class.
 Contd…
A. Quality: Refers to set of things stated in the subject term as
included in or excluded from set of things stated in the
predicate term. If the subject term refers to classes of things,
which are included (partially/entirely) in the predicate term,
the proposition is said to be affirmative, while if the subject
term refers to classes of things are excluded (partially/entirely)
the proposition is negative. View the following table.
B. Quantity: The quantity of a categorical proposition is
determined by the amount or quantity set of things stated in
the subject term. Accordingly, if the subject term refers
entirely, the quantity of the proposition is said to be universal,
whereas, if the amount of the subject class is stated partially,
the quantity of the proposition is said to be particular. Look at
the following table.
 According to the quality and quantity of categorical
propositions, logicians devised letter names of the four
propositions. Accordingly, the four letter names: A, E, I and O
are devised to represent the four standard forms of categorical
propositions and it is summarized as follows
C. Distribution: This emphasizes the terms (the subject &
predicate) than the proposition .If a term refers
unambiguously the set of things stated in it entirely the term
is said to be distributed. It implies that attribute of the class
is distributed to each and every member of the class and
we know clearly that the attribute is shared similarly by
every member of the class. If a term does not, it is said to be
undistributed. Study the following table:
2. Fill the blank space by writing “same” or “different”
A. Proposition A and I are __________ in quality and
_________ in quantity.
B. Proposition E and O are __________ in quality and
_______ in quantity.
3. Write the correct letter name and standard form on the
given empty space
consider all the above discussions are summarized as follows.
• How to determine quality, quantity & distribution?

How to determine the quality, quantity &

distribution? Consider the following example.
In a proposition: Some birds are mammals:
It’s Letter name is I
It’s Standard form is : Some S are P
It’s quality is Affirmative
It’s quantity is Particular
A term, which is distributed, is none of the two terms.
A term, which is undistributed, is both terms (birds and
mammals) are not distributed.
 Lesson 3: Venn Diagrams and the
Modern Square of Opposition
The standard forms of categorical statements can
be represented in diagrams. The first known
diagram of categorical propositions is called
Euler diagram. Later on Euler’s diagram was found
to be ineffective in identifying valid and invalid
categorical syllogistic arguments. As the result new
diagram for categorical propositions become
indispensable.
3.1 Representing Categorical Propositions
in Diagrams

The known nineteenth-century logician John Venn

had developed a system of diagrams to represent the
information they express. These diagrams have
come to be known as Venn diagrams. Venn
diagram is an arrangement of overlapping circles
in which each circle represents the class denoted by a
term in a categorical proposition.
 Contd…
Every categorical proposition has exactly two
terms,(S&P) the Venn diagram for a single
categorical proposition consists of two overlapping
circles. Each circle is labeled as that it
represents one of the terms in the proposition. We
adopt the
convention that the left-hand circle represents the
subject term, and the right-hand circle represents
the predicate term. In such a diagram then :
 Contd…

• The two categories (set of things) stated in the

subject and predicate terms are represented by two
overlapping circles.
 The shaded part of the diagram depicts that there
no member of the class exists; that is it is null or
empty.
 The ―* or simply ―X shows that there is at least
one member of the class exists. Look at the following
Venn diagrams.
 Contd…
1. Proposition A= All S are P

Ex. All Marxists are revolutionary. The shaded part does not represent the
proposition A= All S are P, hence it is empty.
 Contd…
2. Proposition E = No S are P
Ex. No Marxists are revolutionary.
The shaded part shows that the intersection area is empty.

For the proposition E=No S are P, no middle

ground exists, hence the intersection area consists
no member of S and P
 Contd…
3. Proposition I = Some S are P
Ex. Some Marxists are revolutionary.

The ―X sign depicts that

there is at least one member
of the class of S which exists
in the class of P (not vise-
versa)
 Contd…
4. Proposition O = Some S are not P
Ex. Some Marxists are not revolutionary.

The ―X sign is found outside the ―P circle, depicting that at

least one member of S is not found in P class.
3.2 Squares of Opposition: Traditional and
Modern Squares of Opposition
• Modern and traditional square of opposition,
comparing that the diagram for the A proposition with
the diagram for the O proposition.
• The diagram for the A proposition asserts that the left -
hand part of the S circle is empty, whereas the diagram
for the O proposition asserts that this same area is not
empty.
• These two diagrams make assertions that they are exact
opposite of each other. As a result, their corresponding
statements are said to contradict each other.
 Contd…

The diagram for the E proposition asserts that the area

where the two circles overlap is empty, whereas the
diagram for the I proposition asserts that the area where
the two circles overlap is not empty. These
corresponding propositions are also said to contradict
each other. This relationship of mutually contradictory
pairs of propositions is represented in a diagram
called the modern square of opposition. This diagram
arises from the modern (or Boolean) interpretation of
categorical propositions. It is represented as follows:
 Contd…
• It is represented as follows:

1(AO are exact opposite of each other and their corresponding

statements are said to contradict each other);
2(EI are contradicting each other and mutually contradictory
 Contd…
• If two propositions are related by the contradictory
relation, they necessarily have opposite truth value.
Thus, if a certain ‘A’ proposition is given as true, the
corresponding ‘O’ proposition must be false. Similarly,
if certain ‘I’ proposition is given as false, the
corresponding ‘E’ proposition must be true. But no other
inferences are possible. In particular, given the truth value
of an ‘A’ or ‘O’ proposition, nothing can be determined
about the truth value of the corresponding ‘E’or‘I’
propositions. These propositions are said to have logically
undetermined truth value.
 3.3 The Traditional Square of Opposition

• Traditional square of opposition is an Aristotelian which

recognizes the universal propositions about existing things
have existential import (true significance). For such
propositions, the traditional square of opposition becomes
applicable. Like that of the modern one, traditional square
of opposition is also an arrangement of lines that
illustrates logically necessary relations among the four
kinds of categorical propositions.However, because the
Aristotelian standpoint recognizes the additional factor of
existential import, the traditional square supports more
inferences than does the modern square.
 Contd…
Traditional square of opposition is represented in the
following as:

The four relations in the traditional square of opposition may

be characterized as follows:
Contradictory = opposite truth value
Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)
Sub contrary = at least one is true (not both false)
Sub alternation = truth flows downward, falsity flows upward
 Contd…

• The contradictory relation is the same as that found

in the modern square. Thus, if a certain A proposition
is given as true, the corresponding O proposition is
false, and vice versa, and if a certain A proposition is
given as false, the corresponding O proposition is
true, and vice versa.
• The same relation holds between the E and I
propositions. The contradictory relation thus
expresses complete opposition between
propositions.
 Contd…

• The contrary relation differs from the contradictory in

that it expresses only partial opposition. Thus, if a certain A
proposition is given as true, the corresponding E proposition
is false (because at least one must be false), and if an E
proposition is given as true, the corresponding A proposition
is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, the
corresponding E proposition could be either true or false
without violating the at least one is false rule. In this case, the
E proposition has logically undetermined truth value.
Similarly, if an E proposition is given as false, the
corresponding A proposition has logically undetermined truth
value.
 Contd…

• When demonstrated out in ordinary language:

Thus, if we are given the actually true A proposition
‘All cats are animals’ the corresponding E proposition
‘No cats are animals’ is false, and if we are given the
actually true E proposition ‘No cats are dogs’, the
corresponding A proposition ‘All cats are dogs’ is
false. Thus, the A and E propositions cannot both be
true. However, they can both be false. ‘All animals are
cats’ and ‘No animals are cats’ are both false.
The sub contrary relation also expresses a kind of partial
opposition.
 Contd…

• If either an I or an O proposition is given as true, then the

corresponding proposition could be either true or false
without violating the at least one is true‖ rule. Thus, in this
case the corresponding proposition would have logically
undetermined truth value. If we are given the actually false I
proposition ‘Some cats are dogs,’ the corresponding O
proposition ‘Some cats are not dogs’ is true, and if we are
given the actually false O proposition, 'Some cats are not
animals,’ the corresponding I proposition ‘Some cats are
animals’ is true. Thus, the I and O propositions cannot both
be false, but they can both be true. ‘Some animals are cats’
and ‘Some animals are not cats’ are both true.
 Contd…

• The sub-alternation relation is represented

by two arrows: a downward arrow marked
with
the letter T (true), and an upward arrow marked
with an F (false). These arrows can be thought
of as pipelines through which truth values
flow. The downward arrow transmits only
truth, while the upward arrow only falsity.
 Contd…
• Thus, if an A proposition is given as true, the
corresponding I proposition is true also, and if an I proposition
is given as false, the corresponding A proposition is false. But
if an A proposition is given as false, this truth value
cannot be transmitted downward, so the corresponding I
proposition will have logically undetermined truth value.
• Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true, this truth value
cannot be transmitted upward, so the corresponding A
proposition will have logically undetermined truth value.
Analogous reasoning prevails for the sub alternation
relation between the E and O propositions.
To remember the direction of the arrows for sub alternation,
imagine that truth trickles down, and falsity floats‖ up.
 Lesson 4: Evaluating Immediate Inferences:
Using Venn Diagrams and Square of Oppositions
• Modern square of opposition provides logically necessary
results, we can use it to test certain arguments for validity. By
assuming the premise is true, and we enter the pertinent truth
value in the square. We use the square to compute the
truth value of the conclusion. If the square indicates that the
conclusion is true, the argument is valid; if not, the argument
is invalid.
• Arguments of this sort are called immediate inferences
because they have only one premise.
Instead of reasoning from one premise to the next, and
then to the conclusion, we proceed immediately to the
conclusion.
 Contd…
To evaluate inferences or to test argument for validity, we use Venn
Diagrams and Square of Oppositions: let‘s reconsider , the following example
Some trade spies are not masters at bribery.
Therefore, it is false that all trade spies are masters at bribery.
To evaluate this argument, we assume that the premise, is an O
proposition, is true, and we enter this truth value in the square
of opposition.
We then use the square to compute the truth value of the
corresponding A proposition. By the contradictory relation,
the A proposition is false. Since the conclusion claims that
the A proposition is false, the conclusion is true, and therefore
the argument is valid.
 Contd…
By using this technique we often requires that a
diagram statements beginning with the phrase: ‘It is
false that.’
It is false that all A are B.
It is false that some A are B.
The first statement claims that ‘All A are B’ is false.
Thus, it is exact opposite of what we do to diagram
"All A are B”we shade the left -hand part of the A circle:
.
To diagram ‘It is false that all A are B’, we enter an X in the
left-hand part of the A circle. Entering an X in an area is the
opposite of shading an area as in the following diagram. As the diagram
shows, ‘It is false that all A are B’ is actually a particular proposition.
‘It is false that some A are B,’ we do the exact opposite of
what we would do to diagram ―’Some A are B.’ For ―Some
A are B, we would enter an X in the overlap area. Thus, the
diagram for that ‘It is false that some A are B’, we shade
the overlap area:
 Contd…
• If the information expressed by the conclusion
diagram is contained in the premise diagram, the
argument is valid; if not, it is invalid. Here is the
symbolized form of the trade spies inference that we
tested earlier.
Some T are not M.
Therefore, it is false that all T are M.
Drawing two Venn diagrams, one for the premise and the other for the
conclusion. For the premise we enter an X in the left -hand part of the T circle,
and for the conclusion, as we have just seen, we enter an X in the left -hand part of the T
circle: The conclusion diagram asserts that something exists in the left -hand part of
the T circle. Since this information is also expressed by the premise diagram, the
inference is valid. (premise and conclusion assert exactly the same thing).
 Symbolized version of the inference evaluations
It is false that all M are C.
Therefore, no M are C.
To diagram the premise, we enter an X in the left -hand part of the M
circle, and for the conclusion we shade the overlap area: the information of
the conclusion diagram is not contained in the premise diagram, so the
inference is invalid.
• Existential fallacy is a formal fallacy whenever an
argument is invalid merely because the premise lacks
existential import. Such arguments have a universal
premise and a particular conclusion. The fallacy
consists to derive a conclusion having existential
import from a premise that lacks it. If a pair of
diagrams in which the premise diagram contains
shading and the conclusion diagram contains an X.
If the X in the conclusion diagram is in the same part
of the left -hand circle that is unshaded in the
premise diagram, then the inference commits the
existential fallacy.
• The X in the conclusion diagram is in the overlap area, and
this area is unshaded in the premise diagram. Thus, the
inference commits the existential fallacy. All of these forms
proceed from a universal premise to a particular conclusion.
All A are B.
Therefore, some A are B.
It is false that some A are not B.
Therefore, it is false that no A are B.
No A are B.
Therefore, it is false that all A are B.
It is false that some A are B.
Therefore, some A are not B.
4.1 Logical Operations: Conversion, Obversion,
and Contraposition
CONVERSION-the rule of conversion emphasizes the change of the
position of the subject to the predicate and vice versa. Accordingly, by
conversion the four propositions look like the following.
• According to the rule of conversion:
• Propositions E and I always gives the same truth-value.
Hence, we can form a valid conversion from the two
propositions, taking the given proposition as premise
and the converted one as conclusion.
If the given proposition is true, then the new
converted proposition will be again true. If the premise
is false, then the conclusion will be false too.
Symbolically:
No S are P = No P are S
Some S are P = Some P are S
• Both propositions are equivalent and give us the same
truth-value.
• Example 1: (E- proposition)
No birds are featherless (T) = given.
No featherless are birds (T) = New (converted)
Based on the given and converted true statements
we can form valid immediate inference.
Immediate inference is an argument consisting of
only one premise and one conclusion.
The same is true for proposition I .
Some businesses are profitable = True (given)
Some profitable are businesses = True (converted)
In propositions A and O would not give us the same
truth-value always as in the case of proposition E & I
The truth-value of the converted statements of A and
O are undetermined, that is, sometimes it gives us the
same truth-value as the truth-value of the given
proposition, in another occasion they can give us a
different truth-value than a given propos.
Example 1: In proposition ‘A’
A. All men are mortal = True
All mortals are men =False which is different in
truth value from the given proposition.
• Example 1: In proposition ‘A’
A. All men are mortal = True
All mortals are men = False which is different
in truth value from the given proposition.
B. All Muslims are Christians = False
All Christians are Muslims= False which is the
same truth value as the given proposition.
2. In Proposition (O)
A. Some athletes are not drug users = True
Some drug users are not athletes = True, same
B. Some Ethiopians are not Africans = False
Some Africans are not Ethiopians = True , different For
E and I statements, it can be used as the basis for
immediate inferences having these types of statements as
premises. The following inference forms are valid:
No A are B.
E Therefore, no B are A.
I Some A are B.
Therefore, some B are A.
• Inference forms invalid as each commit the fallacy of
illicit conversion: Example:
All A are B. All cats are animals. (True)
A Therefore, all B are A. Therefore, all animals are cats(F)
Some A are not B. Some animals are not dogs. (T)
O Therefore, some B are not A. Therefore, some dogs are not animals(f)
Accordingly, the immediate inferences of proposition A and O in the
case of conversion are invalid and the formal fallacy committed in the
invalid arguments of these propositions is called illicit conversion.
 Obversion in the logical rule has two steps of :
• a. Change the quality without changing its quantity
• b. Change the predicate by its term complement. A term
which has opposite meaning against the meaning of a
given term is called term complement. A term complement
for black is white, and for the term Ethiopians is non
Ethiopians or those that are not Ethiopians.
Contd…
 Contd…
• In the obverse of categorical propositions ,first, we
change the quality (without changing the quantity),
and then we replace the predicate term with its term
complement. For example:
• All horses are animals, then the obverse is
No horses are non-animals ; and if we are given the
statement Some trees are maples, then the obverse
is Some trees are not non-maples.
 Contd…
• To make the first rule of Obversion, change the
quality without changing its quantity. The affirmative
quantifier all has to be replaced by the negative
quantifier no. This is to change the affirmative
quality of the proposition into negative quality.
And again the quantity of these propositions are
universal, that is the propositions that begins by All S
are and No S are are both universal in quantity.
• According to the rule of Obversion, all the four
propositions would give us the same truth-value as it is
in the given proposition. If the given proposition is true,
like:
All S are P is true, then the new obverted statement,
No S are non-P, is also be true.
If the given proposition is false, the new obverted
statement will be false too. It is the same for all
propositions. Example:
I = Some student are clever. (True)
Some students are not lazy. (True) by Obversion.
E= No leaders are liars (False)
All leaders are honest. (False)
• If we consider the given proposition as premise and the
obverted statement as conclusion, the immediate
inference is always valid, hence commits no formal
fallacy. Examples:
• All A are B. Some A are B.
Therefore, no A are non-B. Therefore, some A are not non-B.
No A are B. Some A are not B.
• Therefore, all A are non-B. Therefore, some A are non-B.
• Because the conclusion of each inference form
necessarily has the same truth value as its
premise, if the premise is assumed true, it follows
necessarily that the conclusion is true.
 Contraposition(antithesis). According to the rule of
contraposition, we have to change the position of the
subject to the predicate and vice versa; and, we should to
replace the predicates and the subject terms by their term
complements.
• According to the rule of contraposition, proposition ‘A’
and ‘O’ would give us the same truth value, while
proposition E and I do not. This is just the opposite of what
we have observed in the case of conversion.
A = All worshipers are believers=True
All non- believers are non-worshipers=True
When it is correctly phrased:
All atheists are un worshipers
O =Some delicious foods are not good for health= True
Some that are bad for health are bad foods= True
If the statement “All goats are animals” is contraposed, the
resulting statement is “All non-animals are non-goats.” This
new statement is called the contrapositive of the given
statement.
• As with conversion and Obversion, contraposition
may provide the link between the premise and the
conclusion of an immediate inference. The following
inference forms are valid: Example;
All A are B.
A Therefore, all non-B are non-A.
Some A are not B.
O Therefore, some non-B are not non-A.
• On the other hand, the following inference forms are
invalid. Each commits the fallacy of illicit
contraposition:
Some A are B.
I Therefore, some non-B are non-A.
E No A are B.
Therefore, no non-B are non-A.
• Inferences that commit the fallacy of illicit contraposition
No dogs are cats. (True)
Therefore, no non-cats are non-dogs. (False)
Some animals are non-cats. (True)
Therefore, some cats are non-animals. (False)
 I. Draw Venn diagrams for the following propositions.
1. Some rock-music lovers are not fans of Madonna.
2. Some housing developments are complex that exclude children
II. Use the modern square of opposition to determine whether the following
immediate inferences are valid or invalid from the Boolean standpoint.
1. Some country doctors are altruistic healers.
Therefore, some country doctors are not altruistic healers.
2. It is false that all weddings are light-hearted celebrations.
Therefore, some weddings are not light-hearted celebrations.
III. Convert the following propositions and state whether the converse is logically
equivalent or not logically equivalent to the given proposition.
a. All hurricanes are storms intensified by global warming.
b. No sex-change operations are completely successful procedures
V. Obvert the following propositions and state whether the obverse is logically
equivalent or not logically equivalent to the given proposition.
a. All radically egalitarian societies are societies that do not preserve individual
liberties.
b. No cult leaders are people who fail to brainwash their followers.