Back to Course

Teaching Formal Logic

0% Complete
0/0 Steps
  1. Lessons
    Lesson 1: Teaching Logic Restfully with Rigor (Preview Content)
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  2. Lesson 2: Logic as a Core Discipline (Preview Content)
    3 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  3. Discussion: Logic in One's Life and Study (Preview Content)
    2 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  4. Lesson 3: Formal Logic vs. Informal Logic
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  5. Lesson 4: The Classical Origin and Medieval Recovery of Logic
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  6. Lesson 5: Formal Logic and the Three Acts of the Mind
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  7. Lesson 6: Translating Arguments into Categorical Form
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  8. Lesson 7: Relationships of Opposition
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  9. Lesson 8: Relationships of Equivalence
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  10. Lesson 9: Categorical Syllogisms
    3 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  11. Lesson 10: Determining Validity of Syllogisms
    3 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  12. Lesson 11: Terms and Definitions
    3 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  13. Lesson 12: Developing the End-of-Year Project
    4 Topics
    |
    1 Quiz
  14. End of Course Test
    End of Course Test: Formal Logic
    1 Quiz
Lesson Progress
0% Complete

I. Validity and Counterexample Method
(1) Explaining the difference between true, valid, and sound syllogisms.
(2) Describe how the counterexample method for testing the validity of syllogisms can be very helpful in everyday life.

II. Evaluating Validity: Rules 1 and 2
(1) Explain the difference between “terminological” and “qualitative” rules of validity.
(2) Explain how equivocation plays a part in the construction of invalid syllogisms (avoid using a pun to make your point).
(3) Explain why the inferential process of a syllogism is disrupted when there are four terms. (Hint: You may want to use the analogy of conduction provided in lesson 8.2 to help you clarify your answers.)
(4) Explain why the inferential process is disrupted in a syllogism when the middle term appears in the conclusion. (You may want to again refer to the conduction example provided in lesson 8.2.)

III. Evaluating Validity: Rules 3 and 4
(1) Explain the concept of “distribution” as it relates to valid syllogism construction. Cover:
(a) Why do we consider both the subject and predicate terms of an E statement to be distributed?
(b) Why do we consider only the subject term of an A statement to be distributed?
(c) Why do we consider neither the subject nor the predicate terms of an I statement to be distributed?
(d) Why do we consider only the predicate term of an O statement to be distributed?
(2) Think back to chapter 6 (Relationships of Equivalence) and reconsider how obversion, conversion, and contraposition are affected by issues of distribution of terms. Explain why certain propositions can and cannot be converted in equivalent statements in light of distribution.

IV. Evaluating Validity: Qualitative Rules
(1) In your own words explain why:
(a) no conclusion can follow two negative premises, and why there must always be at least one affirmative premise in a syllogism.
(b) if both of the premises are affirmative, the conclusion must be affirmative.
(c) if either premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.