Logic Skill
Master the principles of valid reasoning: formal logic, informal logic, fallacy detection, and paradox analysis.
Fundamentals
Basic Concepts
| Term |
Definition |
| Argument |
Premises + Conclusion |
| Premise |
Statement offered as support |
| Conclusion |
Statement being supported |
| Valid |
Conclusion follows from premises |
| Sound |
Valid + true premises |
| Cogent |
Strong inductive + true premises |
Validity vs. Soundness
VALIDITY: If premises true, conclusion must be true
(Logical form preserves truth)
SOUNDNESS: Valid + Actually true premises
(Guarantees true conclusion)
EXAMPLE:
All cats are mammals. (True)
All mammals are animals. (True)
∴ All cats are animals. (True) → SOUND
All fish are mammals. (False)
All mammals can fly. (False)
∴ All fish can fly. (False) → VALID but not SOUND
Propositional Logic
Connectives
| Symbol |
Name |
Meaning |
| ¬ |
Negation |
Not P |
| ∧ |
Conjunction |
P and Q |
| ∨ |
Disjunction |
P or Q |
| → |
Conditional |
If P then Q |
| ↔ |
Biconditional |
P iff Q |
Valid Argument Forms
MODUS PONENS MODUS TOLLENS
P → Q P → Q
P ¬Q
───── ─────
∴ Q ∴ ¬P
HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISM DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM
P → Q P ∨ Q
Q → R ¬P
───── ─────
∴ P → R ∴ Q
CONSTRUCTIVE DILEMMA REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
P → Q Assume P
R → S ...
P ∨ R Derive contradiction
───── ─────
∴ Q ∨ S ∴ ¬P
Invalid Forms (Fallacies)
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
P → Q P → Q
Q ¬P
───── ─────
∴ P ✗ INVALID ∴ ¬Q ✗ INVALID
Predicate Logic
Quantifiers
| Symbol |
Name |
Meaning |
| ∀x |
Universal |
For all x |
| ∃x |
Existential |
There exists x |
Valid Inferences
UNIVERSAL INSTANTIATION EXISTENTIAL GENERALIZATION
∀x(Fx) Fa
───── ─────
∴ Fa ∴ ∃x(Fx)
UNIVERSAL GENERALIZATION EXISTENTIAL INSTANTIATION
(arbitrary a) Fa ∃x(Fx)
───── ─────
∴ ∀x(Fx) ∴ Fa (for new constant a)
Informal Fallacies
Fallacies of Relevance
| Fallacy |
Description |
Example |
| Ad hominem |
Attack the person |
"You're wrong because you're stupid" |
| Appeal to authority |
Irrelevant authority |
"A celebrity says X" |
| Appeal to emotion |
Manipulate feelings |
Fear-mongering |
| Red herring |
Change subject |
Diverting attention |
| Straw man |
Misrepresent argument |
Attack weaker version |
Fallacies of Presumption
| Fallacy |
Description |
Example |
| Begging the question |
Assume conclusion |
Circular reasoning |
| False dilemma |
Only two options |
"With us or against us" |
| Hasty generalization |
Small sample |
"Two Xs did Y, so all Xs" |
| Slippery slope |
Unsupported chain |
"A leads to Z inevitably" |
Fallacies of Ambiguity
| Fallacy |
Description |
Example |
| Equivocation |
Shifting meaning |
"Light" (weight/illumination) |
| Amphiboly |
Grammatical ambiguity |
Headlines |
| Composition |
Parts → whole |
"Atoms invisible ∴ tables invisible" |
| Division |
Whole → parts |
"Team good ∴ each player good" |
Paradoxes
Liar Paradox
"This sentence is false"
If true → It says it's false → False
If false → It says it's false, which is true → True
RESPONSES:
├── Tarskian hierarchy: No self-reference
├── Paraconsistent logic: Accept contradiction
├── Gapping: Sentence is neither true nor false
└── Contextualism: Truth conditions shift
Sorites Paradox (Heap)
1 grain is not a heap.
If n grains is not a heap, n+1 grains is not a heap.
∴ 1,000,000 grains is not a heap. ✗
RESPONSES:
├── Epistemicism: Sharp boundary, we don't know where
├── Supervaluationism: True under all precisifications
├── Degree theory: "Heap" admits degrees
└── Contextualism: Boundary shifts with context
Russell's Paradox
R = {x : x ∉ x} (Set of all sets not members of themselves)
Is R ∈ R?
If yes → By definition, R ∉ R
If no → By definition, R ∈ R
RESPONSE: Type theory, set-theoretic axioms preventing
unrestricted comprehension
Modal Logic
Basic Modal Operators
| Symbol |
Meaning |
| □P |
Necessarily P |
| ◊P |
Possibly P |
Relations
□P ↔ ¬◊¬P (Necessary = not possibly not)
◊P ↔ ¬□¬P (Possible = not necessarily not)
Systems
| System |
Characteristic Axiom |
| K |
Basic modal logic |
| T |
□P → P (Necessity implies truth) |
| S4 |
□P → □□P (Iterated necessity) |
| S5 |
◊P → □◊P (Possibility is necessary) |
Argument Analysis Protocol
ANALYZING ARGUMENTS
═══════════════════
1. IDENTIFY CONCLUSION
What is being argued for?
2. IDENTIFY PREMISES
What reasons are given?
3. SUPPLY HIDDEN PREMISES
What's assumed but not stated?
4. EVALUATE VALIDITY
Does conclusion follow?
5. EVALUATE SOUNDNESS
Are premises true?
6. CHECK FOR FALLACIES
Any reasoning errors?
Key Vocabulary
| Term |
Meaning |
| Entailment |
P logically implies Q |
| Tautology |
True under all interpretations |
| Contradiction |
False under all interpretations |
| Contingent |
Neither tautology nor contradiction |
| Consistent |
Can all be true together |
| Inference |
Moving from premises to conclusion |
| Deduction |
Conclusion follows necessarily |
| Induction |
Conclusion follows probably |
Integration with Repository
Related Skills
argument-mapping: Visualizing argument structure
thought-experiments: Logical analysis of scenarios